Search the Community

Yeah, I am pretty stoked about this. If I could use the Remote Tech line of sight and delay with stock looking dishes and the kOS scripting functionaly together I would be so happy. That really has to be an ideal combination. No need for kOS to do range requirements when something like Remote Tech does it really neatly and nicely and no need for Remote Tech to develop a flight computer when kOS is doing that job in a very comprehensive way. There was even some talk of information maybe being relayed by orbiting probes that do not have a continuous line of sight. However, just the above would make KSP quite a different game. More realistic, a lot harder but more rewarding and entertaining. I prefer two mods doing what they do best, instead of them both trying to do each other's part (with all due respect) half assed.

There's already two whole pages of in-depth docking guides, and who knows if you'll even read this, but damned if I'm not gonna try. Welcome to MockKnizzle's Kwik 'n Durty Docking Guide. No mods needed. So. Step 1: Rendezvous. We already have something up in space to dock with, right? Cool. Let's say it's in a nice, simple 100km circular equatorial orbit. Awesome. Now we're ready to launch, yeah? What we're gonna do is wait until the target is somewhere in the neighborhood of 400km out (you can see the distance to target if you hover over it in map view), make sure we have a launch vehicle with some spare dV once we hit LKO, and light that sucker. We're gonna launch into a nice, easy circular orbit just outside the atmosphere. 75km is totally fine. Once we're up, we wanna check and see where we ended up relative to our target. Hop into map view. Our ship should be somewhere pretty close to where our target is, a little ahead or behind doesn't matter. Now, what we wanna do is find a node, either ascending or descending, and plot our rendezvous transfer there. I like to match planes first with a little purple-triangle action, and then after that, simply pull on that green prograde widget until you get a close approach (typically something less than 2km, be as precise as you want). Burn it. Sweet deal. We're now on a rendezvous course. What now, you ask? Step 2: Docking. , did you see how I set that up? So slick. Well, we're now hurtling through the cosmos on a near-intercept course with our target spacecraft, but we'd really like to stop by for some tea and not zoom past at hundreds of meters per second. So what we're gonna do here is wait until we're nice and close (hopefully within the physics load distance of 2-point-something km), align ourselves with the retrograde velocity indicator cause we're already in target mode (you better be!), and burn to kill our relative velocity. Now, be careful when I say that, cause I don't mean want to stop entirely - we just need to scrub off enough relative speed that we give ourselves some time to maneuver. Docking is a continuous process, you never just stop completely.Say we're coming in at a relative velocity of 120m/s at 2km out. We're gonna wanna slow down gradually to something more manageable, first like 50, then 20, then 10, then 5, then 1m/s. Our rate of closure is gonna depend on how far we are away, so we'll slow down more as we get closer. If you're paying attention to life and the navball, you'll probably notice that there's those nice little pink direction-to-target indicators, and also that the relative velocity indicators don't match up with them. We need to fix that. Since we're in the process of slowing down and we're typically oriented retrograde, we'll talk about "pushing" the navball indicators around. If we thrust with our ship's nose aligned somewhere to the side of our retrograde velocity indicator (green with an X), the indicator will move away from where we're pointing. In this way, we can brake AND push that little bastard so it's more or less aligned with the target retrograde marker (pink triangle-thing). That's what we wanna do. As we close the 2km or so to our target, we want to be slowing down in a series of steps, and lining those two indicators up at the same time. In no time we'll be within a hundred or so meters of our target, and since we've been making sure the keep the velocity and target markers aligned, we're heading straight for it. Now all there is to do is find your docking port of choice, swing the ship around in that direction, and finish the job with RCS (which I'm gonna assume people know how to use). Would you look at that, you're docked and it took less than 10 minutes to do it! Man, what a useful guide. Thanks, MockKnizzle!

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand the meaning of this, if you'd like to talk about the update of .22, which seems to be the case, check it out at the official thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/53061-The-Grand-0-22-Discussion-Thread Thanks, -M5K

Hello, I love KSP but I hate building, playing by my self. Does anyone run like a team speak community where we can talk, share idea's, etc.. If not I think I might create one =) GA

Granted, it is the password for launching all the nukes in the world and destroy the human race... I wish I could talk to cupcake moar.

I know at least two ways that can be done. One is posting on other existing threads about v0.22, and another is something I can't say because it is not allowed on forums. Honestly, this is stupid. "I'm so nervous, I want others to see I'm nervous, I better go and open thread #6256375 about v0.22 and talk about how I'm nervous."

Talk about one hell of a birthday present.

Time for a post about thermal mechanics, as progress is now being made on this. First of all, I want to talk about how generators in this mod work at present. Each generator has a rating when you build it and when you upgrade it that tells you the "percentage of Carnot efficiency" that the generator provides, this Carnot efficiency refers to the percentage of Carnot cycle efficiency it achieves. The Carnot cycle is the type of cycle used by an ideal heat engine, i.e. the most efficient a theoretical heat engine can be. The Carnot efficiency is given by 1-TC/TH where TC is the temperature of a "cold bath" and TH is the temperature of a "hot bath". Practical heat engines don't use Carnot cycles. They use (ideally) Eriksen cycles, Rankin cycles, Stirling cycles, Brayton cycles, etc. So, the total efficiency of the generator (which is what you see on the part display while it is running) is given by this percentage of carnot efficiency parameter (say 24%) multiplied by 1-TC/TH. The hot bath temperature TH is simply equal to the core temperature of the reactors, which you can look up on the table on the first page of the thread, in the wiki or in the VAB. At present, the cold bath temperature TC is arbitrarily set to 500. In future updates, instead of having an arbitrary value for TC it will instead use the average temperature of your radiators. The key point to take from this if you're less interested in the actual maths of it is simply: by having more radiators to keep your ship cool, the more efficient your electrical generators will be. Once radiators reach the maximum temperature, they will begin to accumulate heat that they can't dissipate fast enough, so the "WasteHeat" bar in the resource menu is effectively the danger marker - when that gets full: problems! Fortunately, as always, there are safety features to prevent things becoming too deadly. Once your WasteHeat bar fills up to 99% of maximum, your reactors will perform emergency shutdowns in order to prevent the accumulation of further dangerous waste heat. This is no big deal for antimatter reactors, you can simply restart them once the heat level drops to safe limits. The fission reactors, however, are not designed to be shut down completely but rather operate continuously at, at least, a low power level. They are capable of shutting down but doing so is an emergency procedure and they will then require maintenance to get them working again. Should you somehow keep generating heat (actually rather difficult with all the safety features) and reach the 100% mark, death and explosions will result.

There was talk a while back about a rotating microwave transmitter dish, so it could track the planet. What are the chances of that happening, or does anyone know whether there is a parts mod that includes something that can be used to continuously point a dish at the center of a planet, as the kethane detectors and ISA Mapsat dish does? I'd like to be able to put one of those on my orbital power stations, so I'm not shooting most of the power out into space for a little under 2/3 of my orbit, and instead direct it at the planet's surface and ships in lower orbits. I've tried using multiple dishes, but since generated power isn't divided among the transmitters it just drains the power faster while simultaneously shooting power where I don't want it to go: into space. At the same time, increasing the number of reactors and generators only increases the amount of power that goes out through the transmitter, instead of solving my power problems. I know some people are putting large solar arrays into an orbit of Kerbol and beaming power out to all of the planets, but that's not the route I want to go, because I prefer to keep the source of power close to what it's feeding in case something goes awry. So, any help on solving these issues would be appreciated. Kudos to all of Fractal, zzz and anyone who has had a hand in developing, expanding and testing this mod. It's great.

For armor u will want to talk with Zeke or Spartwo As for weapons I can help with that Also the best way with aiming is to practice practice practice You can do this by setting up your own battles and playing against yourself. Also one big thing you can do is download others ships and learn from them My Salvation and Archangel are based on Macy Deans Vanguard and my Zion frigate is somewhat modeled after Zekes Drek destroyers. My Cherub fighters are a thinner version of Macey deans shade fighter. I just took that model, learned how it was made and made it thinner so it could fit in a carrier And don't hesitate to ask people for downloads Worst they can say is no

The main issues I have with 8 is the 'fixing' of things that were not broken, like full-screen notifications, dumbed-down 'something went wrong' error messages, and the new event log. (Admittedly the event log changes came in somewhere along Vista to 7, but the old version worked perfectly well, now I get to use 1/3 of my screen to see the events.) Oh and the gesture support. Someone really needs to have a talk with whoever came up with that one - lead pipe style. Metro is another great example of change for changes sake, but as it apes the Unity/Gnome 3 interface I'll give MS a pass on following the herd for that one. Frankly I care that my PC runs sanely more than an extra bit of performance or quicker boot time. But yeah I've held onto it, that's the curse of having to support it, much like yourself.

My thougts: You need a decent force to bring these tanks to a "safe" distance. Let's talk about 100m/s^2 for at least 10 seconds. I'll don't know, if "some separatrons" are the right way to handle this issue. And if you do it in the right way, the AM-Reactor should go the same way if something went wrong.But i also would like to see a more "plugable" AM-Tank & Nuclear Reactor.

I'm sorry, but it's not our job to do the research for you or for any other people who question the veracity of accepted historical events. Ever since the Moon hoax web sites started cropping up, there have been web sites devoted to debunking those theories. Like this one, which answered the points that you brought up back in 2001: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo/moon_hoax_FAQ.html The problem when debating these issues is that each time you debunk a wacky claim, hoaxers come up with another hoax. This is simply because the burden of proof lies on the person making the hypothesis. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and it's impossible to prove a negative. Now, I'm not claiming you are a hoaxer. You seem to have a more open mind and I think you are genuinely puzzled by some of the things that you have seen and are just curious about the explanations. However, this is a sensitive subject, for reasons that I have already discussed. If you have studied radiation, then you should know that radiation tolerance levels are measured in Sieverts, which is a cumulative value that measures the concentration of ionizing radiation absorbed per unit of a material's mass. In other words, it depends on both the level of radiation that you are exposed to AND the duration of the exposure. It works a bit like a photographic film, where the exposure depends on both aperture and speed, or like a sunburn. As long as you don't bask in the cosmic rays for too long, you should be fine. The Apollo astronauts didn't spend enough time exposed to high cosmic radiation to be negatively affected. Similarly, the vast majority of the "liquidators" at Chernobyl haven't died from cancer from the cleanup work because although the radiation levels were high, they were only exposed for short periods. To sum it up, there is zero evidence that the Apollo astronauts couldn't have survived the trip. Not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper has ever been published with that claim. Yet there is ample evidence that they could, because most of them are still alive today to tell the story, with their medical records, photographs and all the documentation, archives, and published scientific results from the Apollo project. To put it another way, on one side of the scales there is your own personal hunch on a subject where you have no real expertise, and on the other side there is the word of thousands of direct witnesses, many of whom are scientists, engineers, military and intelligence personnel from all over the world, and literally tons of documentation, science publications, and historical evidence. Do you see the disconnect here? Yes, because a lot of the physics involved are unintuitive because our experience as human beings is mostly limited to our specific environment. The same is true for quantum physics or relativity. Most of it is unintuitive and demonstrates unexpected results. It's a bit like KSP. Stuff like orbital rendez-vous is pretty hard to explain to a new player because it is unintuitive that you need to decelerate to catch up with your target and to accelerate to let it catch up with you, yet that's how it works and we have to explain it over and over again, because it's that hard to believe. There is nothing wrong with not knowing what to expect, but phenomenon like how rocket plumes affect dust on the Moon are simply not areas that you or I have any daily experience with, so we are simply not equipped to argue about it. However, when you see something that doesn't fit your expectation, the most logical reaction should be "there must be something going on here that I don't understand" rather than "someone must be playing tricks on me". The former is healthy curiosity. The latter is mild paranoia. Personally, my usual first reaction is to pull up good old Wikipedia and have a quick read about the subject. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays If there actually was a swap of personnel, why would they need to fake any pictures of the lunar surface? If you accept the fact that they did send men to the Moon, they did openly talk with them during the missions (the communications were monitored by foreign agencies after all), they did leave stuff on the surface, and they did bring back rocks, then they were also quite capable of taking real EVA pictures and only the pictures from inside the vehicles would have needed to be faked. Even if they did fake these pictures and they did actually put the LM in the middle of a Hollywood sound stage with a crane, do you really think they would have forgotten to dig a crater underneath the LM if that is what they expected? Do you really think they could have got everything perfectly right in those pictures and movies except for that one single detail? Have you ever seen a large budget science fiction movie that didn't have at least dozens of glaring mistakes or impossibilities? Even Kubrik's "2001" has dozens of glaring errors in it, although it was state-of-the-art in the day and folks from NASA contributed to make it as realistic as possible. The Manhattan project was kept secret for all of 4 years, and even though people didn't know what the goal was, they did know that they were working on a secret project and they did know about the compartmentalization and the reasons for it. And it was all fully declassified decades ago, and so have all of the other government secrets from the Cold War era, including the U-2, SR-71, Hexagon... even though these projects contain information that even today, we wouldn't like some people from getting their hands on. The F-117 or B-2 were kept pretty much under wraps for a decade each, but there were still leaks and it was public knowledge that there were secret stealth aircraft projects going on. People who work on classified projects know that they work on classified projects, and so do their families. Usually, when asked decades later, they don't hide the fact that they worked on classified government projects even if the project is still classified. Governments can keep a project secret, but it's hard for them to hide the fact that there is a secret project. If only because the decision to keep a project classified as top secret involves a lot of people at the political level. If there was any secret around Apollo, they couldn't have kept the secret (or even the secret that there was a secret) for 45 years in the current information-driven world. People who were working on the project would have known that there was a secret to keep, they would have been aware of any compartmentalization or areas where they were not allowed to ask questions. The Soviets would have noticed that the communications were not coming from the Moon, that the orbital tracking data did not match up with NASA's claims or that their were anomalies in the published photographs. Yet not a single NASA employee has ever mentioned that there were parts of Apollo that were secret and no foreign government has ever stated that something was fishy about their observations. This is why people get defensive when you bring up stuff like this, because basically you are calling all of these people liars. There are many people who have an interest in space who lurk on these forums, including some who might work at NASA or whose parents might have worked on Apollo. You are portraying these thousands of people as government spooks who are still today actively lying to the general public, when they are mainly motivated by noble dreams of science and exploration. If you even looked, you'd be surprised at how open NASA is about everything, how much documentation is available, much more so than any other space agency. It is far from a covert organization and there is simply no evidence that anyone has ever been covering up anything.

Certainly not. The fact that it was intended as a way to more gradually introduce parts to new players is what makes it a tutorial. And as I have already said, once I learned that this was the intent, I conceded that my original criticisms no longer applied. In case you haven't been following, here's how the thread has evolved: My original position: "The implementation of science in 0.22 doesn't seem to do what people on the forum have been talking about as "career mode", rather it seems like an XP system. Does this lead to an "XP grind"? I think it does, we can look at the long history of MMOs as evidence. This doesn't seem to add end goals or challenges as such" Then AlamoVampire posted a link to this video. The part you want to listen to is the part at 7 minutes 15 seconds. Here you go: http://youtu.be/CupGRIL2h64?t=7m15s When I saw this I said "Ahhh, this is not the career mode you've been looking for". It's a tutorial. And if that is its intended purpose, then the mechanic is probably fine. But while I was saying this, a select few people decided to jump in and say really entertaining and irrelevant things, such as: - RAAAAGH ALPHA" - "You can't talk about upcoming features and suggest ideas in the forum titled features and ideas! You can only discuss features that have already been release and which you've actually played and that, therefore, have already had dozens or hundreds of hours of work poured into them and which are therefore hard to change!" (This one is my absolute favourite, I nearly spilled my drink laughing when I read that) - "RAAAGH ALPHA" - etc. And since then, I have had a wonderful time pointing out the nonsense of such statements.

Dl and signing up. It'll be nice to talk shop with people who know what KSP is.

Further, let's all recall that LKO takes less than half the deltaV required for low earth orbit. If you want to complain about people making it too easy, talk to Squad. (And deltaV is exponential when it comes to fuel mass: double the deltaV, way more than double the fuel/thrust; half the deltaV, way less than half the mass of booster required.)

To refine your Alcubierre explanation slightly it is not that it moves the area of space that contains the ship, it is that it compresses the spacetime in front of the ship and expands the spacetime behind it. Nothing is actually in motion at all... Interesting factoid: In 2012 a NASA laboratory announced that they have constructed an interferometer that they claim will detect the spatial distortions produced by the expanding and contracting spacetime of the Alcubierre metric. If this works as they claim, and they do detect these distortions... Talk about proof of intelligent extraterrestrial life! It would be amazing.

See, this is why I come here. Pure analysis. Bravo. Look, people. Others are going to have questions like mine. For those of you who think this subject was already dead and buried when I brought it up - well it's not, and never will be. New people are going to be running across these arguments all the time. Think Youtube (but that is not where I learned of it). Only a few of them are going to go research for themselves. And another one might end up in here. I don't understand everything NASA writes, and neither will the next new comer. So please chill out. And you are, gradually. So thank you for that. Let's leave a complete record for you guys to point to, when the next curious person comes along. I listed things when I first got here that sent everyone into a tizzie. There were a number of subjects listed. I could go point by point and say no one refuted point x or y, or that I lost on this point and that point. But that is not what I want to get across to you. I have looked into terrestrial radiation sources, including isotopes found in nuclear fallout, how to shield from that, half-lives, where my local nuke plants are located, what the seasonal prevailing winds are for my state. OK? But I don't know jack about space radiation other than high energy radiation like xray and gamma rays are the worst, and of course what I have read about the Van Allen belt, and the cross section pictures of it. Van Allan and NASA disagree on facts. I just know that kind of radiation is never good for humans and there was zero shielding, except for the mass of the ship itself. I want you to consider the pictures. You can say I have misinterpreted this or that. Some have already accused me of "just repeating what others have said". When you cite NASA, you do the same thing. But obviously the pictures are going to have to come from NASA, there is no choice. So as a regular Joe Layman, I download all the moon photos I could get in one evening. All the missions. I looked into this lack of crater thing. That's a label I don't like because I never expected a crater, just evidence of a change. I set aside the fact that as a preteen and teen I was allowed to stay up for all hours of the night watching all the moon footage I could. I witnessed it. I am not like the current generation who learns about it after the fact because of their place in time, I saw it live. That list of specific photos did not come from some conspiracy site. I made that list myself out of the files I downloaded because I thought they were they best shots to look at for this issue. Some missions didn't offer the greatest viewing opportunity under the LM, but you can certainly see what's around it. I have not read the NASA PDF provided above, yet. I will. You want to talk science? Then please repeat the experiment. PLEASE look at the pictures I cited. And not to beat a dead horse, but afterwords review the things I said about them, what I found, and what I expected to find, and then we include the historical story line. SEE for yourself WHY someone could come in here and say things that goes against the grain. Gentlemen, I saw both things with my own eyes. I saw the live B&W footage, and I am looking at the archival photos and it still raises an eyebrow. I know what happens if I shutdown my engine too early, even on low gravity Mimnus. Now I know a good portion of you will say something like, it's been proven therefore I don't need to look at it, you're too lazy to research for yourself, yadda yadda yadda. But I want YOU to understand something, and that is why people can think like this. Look at the photos! I swear the ground below the nozzle looks like there has been no interaction at all, regardless of the actual "blast radius" size arguments, velocities involved, whatever. There was mass. It has to slow down and not gain velocity. And I expect something to happen when my thrust, as minor as it is, hits that long undisturbed, dust layer. I think of those very perfectly defined footprints and I know that tells me that fine particle size is needed to leave those sharp 90 degree angles in the flour fine dust that makes up those beautiful footprints. That same kind of dust had to be under the LMs. If it is moved by pressure, I expect to see some pattern or design, or a clearing away; some evidence of a recent change. You never see any of that. In fact the Apollo 11 pic I cite looks like rain droplets have hit the thick dry dust, not a directed blast of some pressure level. Another picture looks like animal footprints under it (and I didn't say there were any animals involved for those who like to put words in my mouth). But these features are not only immediate to the nozzel but off as far as the edge of the LM. I think someone suggested that the LMs came down with some lateral motion. If so, then those 5' probes should have made some short lines in the ground until the vehicle started dropping straight down. You don't see any indication of lateral movement from that perspective either. If science says there would be no change to the surface, fine. I'd find that hard to believe, but would try. If science says there should be a change, then WOW, I don't see it! That's where I was at when I came in here. So, as a witness to all the live broadcasts, and as one who has looked a long time at those photos I cited, and even AFTER getting the "treatment" here, I am still going to tell you, and you can quote me "It looks like the LM's were set in place by a crane, due to the lack of any visual disturbance to the areas immediate to the nozzle." It just looks damn odd and unexpected to my eye. And I would really like the reader to understand that someone could come to that conclusion, based solely on what is, and what isn't in the photos cited. Please look. PS Please stop trying to tie me to a fake moon landing. My stance was this. The photos of the LM don't add up. That just says the photos are in question - not the landing. And that we probably landed on the moon, but I suggested that maybe it wasn't Neil. Patriotic men will do what their country asks them to do. All that suggestion requires is a swap of personnel and following orders. It's not my burden to defend a hoax theory, because I never said that. I do not require secret Saturn Vs. You do, You're going there. I am not. Secrecy? Compartmentalization? I would reference the Manhattan project. Arguably the second most important thing that America ever did. Keeping big secrets is a piece of cake, when you do it like they did. I question some of the archival photos, and the Van Allan radiation thing. That is as far as I am willing to go. I can be convinced. But I also like independent verification whenever possible. I cannot do that with space radiation, but I can do that with photos. However, the photos raised more questions than they solved. I am curious about a few other things too, but will probably no longer ask about them.

Wow, talk about one of the best mods known to kerbal kind! Seriously kudos all round for anyone who had a hand in this. I'm floored! In any case, I was curious as to how can you go about tweaking the costs of parts? I don't want to reduce anything, I just noticed that my Flight Engineer module has the cost of 1. I find that too cheap and was hoping to have it's cost be more like the mechjeb module which is something like 3,000K. Also, not that it would make a massive difference, I noticed that items placed in bins don't add to the cost calculations. Is there any plans in the future to make this be factored? Again, amazing work I've started a new game to try things out and will be making some missions myself! Woo!

Man Gizmodo sucks. They talk about these high res images and don't link to them. They only link to their own website. And their writing sounds like a middle schooler's Did anyone manage to find the original LRO images?

Nice way to not talk about the subject and pollute the thread. Please enlighten us with your advice on this subject -snip-

Yes, that's my point. I must say, I'm pleased to see you're starting to come around. Or not. But running out of arguments I see. 1) We do know what they are. 2) Why does it matter which parts Squad says are "tier 1"? If you want to limit yourself, just pick which parts you want to exclude. If you mean to say "the tech tree is just a tutorial" - again, yes, this is what I've already stated. No, I really do, because some things are just necessarily true. If you are trying to tell me that adding a tech tree where you have to unlock new nodes somehow introduces a new and interesting gameplay element where you specifically do not try to unlock new nodes - I would tell you that what you were saying is complete lunacy. It is certainly the case that, as a tutorial system for new players, the tech tree implementation as it stands right now needs no modification. I already said this in a previous post. However, this does not change the fact that the tech tree is nothing but a generic XP system, and all XP systems motivate the player to do exactly one thing: gain XP. I've been a programmer for 20 years. I started in games. Go ahead and look me up. Yeeesss.... not sure why you are pointing this out. I am doing neither. I opened a discussion on a topic, gave my thoughts and suggestions. Perhaps you should read the OP again? And, because you seem to have missed it, let me state that last point again: It makes no sense to claim that this forum, titled "suggestion and development discussion", should only be used to discuss things that have been built, tested, signed off and released, because that is the point at which things are hardest to change. Do you go into all the threads about "improved aerodynamics", the upcoming economy, the threads that brought up what was wrong with SAS and how it needed to change, and tell them "no, you can't talk about those things until they're implemented"? Because, once again, that seems pretty insane to me.

When people talk about faster than light, implied is ability to carry information. Shadow moving faster than light is fine, because it inherently cannot carry information. Another illustrative example is phase velocity vs group velocity of light in materials. You probably know that index of refraction in material is related to speed of light in materials. High index of refraction means that light travels through material slower. But there are materials with index of refraction less than one. That means light travels through them faster than light. What? Well, it's the phase velocity that's faster. If you look at the beam, the waves of electromagnetic intensity really do seem to move faster than the speed of light, but if you look at where the pulse begins, that front is still moving slower than light. That is group velocity and it is what determines how fast you can send information. (Because my explanation of phase vs group velocity is probably not very clear, take a look at top animation on the Wikipedia's article on the subject.)

Stream over! Thanks to the people that came! And sorry to the guy who tried to talk to me when I couldn't see the chat. Twitter was open and I didn't see the window. Tomorrow is when the real scary games start. We'll start with Vanish, a randomly generated horror game of hallways in a similar vein as SCP-087-B. Then we'll play either Slender: Haunt or Haunted Memories. Same game, different styles.

There is (I do), but we don't talk about that here. It's like Fight Club!