Should celestial bodies in KSP 2 have axial tilts?

[pandaman]

On 6/25/2022 at 12:33 PM, Vl3d said:

It's not just a navigation issue. It's the whole nature of the planet, the day/night cycle, the climate, the surface launch dV.. a lot of other stuff.

Yes, I agree, and I would like axial tilt, but I can't say that it would make a lot of difference to my enjoyment overall.

If I want to land at a given location for whatever reasons, the conditions there are what I will deal with.  If and how they would have been different due to axial tilt or not is of no consequence beyond interesting conjecture.

[Superfluous J]

(replying before I read the rest of the thread)

On 6/23/2022 at 11:46 AM, intelliCom said:

If KSP 2's planets should have axial tilt, should the axial tilt of already existing planets and moons be changed?

Yes. I believe they should. Possibly as a difficulty option.

I wrote down somewhere what I thought each should be but I can't find it now. But I think Kerbin and Minmus should each be tilted to match Minmus' orbit, and Mun should remain in the ecliptic. Eve should rotate backwards, and Duna should be tilted 20-30 degrees. Not sure about the rest of the planets or the moons.

I don't expect this in the base game, but I do hope it's as simple to change as modifying a text file to change a "0" to another number.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Superfluous J

[intelliCom]

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Yes. I believe they should. Possibly as a difficulty option.

Not so sure about difficulty options. In KSP1, those can be changed mid-gameplay, and god knows what kind of loveery could be achieved by altering the tilts of planets on-the-fly. Make something like axial tilt a difficulty option, what else could be? Atmospheric max height? SOI radii? Nah. Planet-specific properties should remain static across any difficulty.

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

But I think Kerbin and Minmus should each be tilted to match Minmus' orbit, and Mun should remain in the ecliptic.

Kerbin remains facing straight up, allowing the Mun to be perfect for "baby's first hohmann transfer". Minmus should tilt to match its orbit, both to introduce axial tilt, and to make it easier for players to land if they match Minmus' orbital inclination before performing a hohmann transfer.

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

Eve should rotate backwards, and Duna should be tilted 20-30 degrees.

Agree on these, actually. Eve's always been that sort of "hell planet" in the Kerbol system; strong gravity, extreme atmospheric pressure, and higher heat due to being closer to Kerbol. Having a retrograde rotation would be very characteristic of Eve, though easy account for in an interplanetary transfer. (Also obvious reference to Venus' rotation, duh)

[Bej Kerman]

8 hours ago, Superfluous J said:

(replying before I read the rest of the thread)

Yes. I believe they should. Possibly as a difficulty option.

I wrote down somewhere what I thought each should be but I can't find it now. But I think Kerbin and Minmus should each be tilted to match Minmus' orbit, and Mun should remain in the ecliptic. Eve should rotate backwards, and Duna should be tilted 20-30 degrees. Not sure about the rest of the planets or the moons.

I don't expect this in the base game, but I do hope it's as simple to change as modifying a text file to change a "0" to another number.

Remember, this is the very start of the game. Kerbin having any tilt and Mun having any inclination would just hinder any new players trying to wrap their head around Hohmann transfers.

[SciMan]

Yeah keep the axial tilt stuff to a minimum for Kerbin, the Mun, and Minmus.

And I do agree that the smaller bodies (Gilly Bop Pol and maybe or maybe not Minmus since it's in Kerbin orbit) should have wacky axial tilts to represent the fact that they are captured bodies.

But as for planets and moons in interstellar systems, I hope we get at least one moon that's orbiting retrograde relative to the planet's rotation (and maybe relative to the rotation of the other moons too, if there are indeed other moons of course).

[mcwaffles2003]

On 6/24/2022 at 2:57 AM, Bej Kerman said:

IIRC Rask and Rusk don't have atmospheres to heat parts up with.

On 6/26/2022 at 9:27 AM, Bej Kerman said:

Intellicom was talking about planets that heat your ship just by being there. You need an atmosphere for that.

You don't need an atmosphere to heat things, radiative energy works just fine

 

On 6/26/2022 at 10:22 AM, t_v said:

If you have touched a hot piece of metal, you'll know that conduction is also a valid way for heat to transfer

On 6/26/2022 at 10:31 PM, intelliCom said:

This is what I was mainly referring to, heat through conduction, like what would most likely happen on Io. But heat through atmosphere is also pretty interesting to deal with. Both would be interesting.

Conduction would do the job as well, but only for landing on something hot. Realistically landing near or orbiting something very hot would also be harmful to a ship

[SciMan]

With the way heating works in KSP 1, putting an extremely hot but "literally one LSB more dense than actually no atmosphere" atmosphere (so it doesn't decay orbits or allow for aerodynamic effects) is the best way to apply heat in the vicinity of a planet.

Before Moho arrived at its current form (when the planets and moons other than Kerbin Mun and Minmus got added, ancient history yes but it happened and I was there for it), Moho was a place that you had to design your craft specially for, because it had just such an atmosphere as I have described (thin enough that wings and parachutes never work, but thick enough to transfer large amounts of heat, and yes it was indeed quite hot).
That got removed I think the (major) patch right after it was added, because people complained about their ships exploding for "seemingly no reason".

But it would be nice to see it make a return, if not around Moho then around another planet perhaps around another star.
We don't have an Io-like planet in KSP 1, maybe we get one around another star in KSP 2? Only time (or the developers) will tell, and I'm not going to even try to put odds on when the developers will reveal any new info about the universe they're creating, but if they do anything before the game releases, it will likely not be enough to answer all our questions.

[Superfluous J]

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Remember, this is the very start of the game. Kerbin having any tilt and Mun having any inclination would just hinder any new players trying to wrap their head around Hohmann transfers.

True, which is why I was thinking difficulty options.

Another option is to have Kerbin and Mun tilted the same way, so Mun still orbits right above Kerbin's equator, but both are tilted relative to the Sun. Minmus could be in the Ecliptic, so you could use it to line up for interplanetary ejections. Also, it would make Minmus an even better interplanetary refueling stopover.

[mcwaffles2003]

11 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

True, which is why I was thinking difficulty options.

Another option is to have Kerbin and Mun tilted the same way, so Mun still orbits right above Kerbin's equator, but both are tilted relative to the Sun. Minmus could be in the Ecliptic, so you could use it to line up for interplanetary ejections. Also, it would make Minmus an even better interplanetary refueling stopover.

That's honestly best of all worlds.... 

Hope that can happen

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Superfluous J said:

True, which is why I was thinking difficulty options.

Another option is to have Kerbin and Mun tilted the same way, so Mun still orbits right above Kerbin's equator, but both are tilted relative to the Sun. Minmus could be in the Ecliptic, so you could use it to line up for interplanetary ejections. Also, it would make Minmus an even better interplanetary refueling stopover.

When I was learning how to do interplanetary transfers, not having to do an inclination change burn was very helpful in managing to have enough dV and making things simpler

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, t_v said:

When I was learning how to do interplanetary transfers, not having to do an inclination change burn was very helpful in managing to have enough dV and making things simpler

I get this but also just set up a small fuel base at minmus 1st then. Low gravity, you're already on the ecliptic, it's a perfect launching point.

[Snark]

On 6/23/2022 at 12:48 PM, Pthigrivi said:

I think it will be in the game, though again I can't remember if it's confirmed or not. Im personally fine with tilting a few of the Kerbol system bodies too. 

My understanding is that,

• Unlike KSP1, yes, there will be axial tilt in KSP2.
• They don't intend to change any of the orbital characteristics of the original bodies of the home solar system, so we shouldn't expect to see any axial tilt there.

That's my understanding of what they will do. What one thinks they should do is another matter, of course.    Personally, I would say that absolutely it's the right thing to keep Kerbin and Mun at zero tilt, at the very least, mainly due to how hard a lot of players find it to master the early elements of the game. A training ground, as has been remarked. If they keep the rest of the home system at zero tilt, I'm fine with that, too, though I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it, as long as it's easily moddable (which I expect it will be).

I do really look forward to exploring new planets which have some tilt.

[Vl3d]

52 minutes ago, Snark said:

I don't feel strongly one way or the other about it, as long as it's easily moddable

Agree with you about Kerbin and Mun tilt. Other planets and moons could use some tilt + wobble.

But what I really wanted to say it's that a lot of people in the community are abusing the idea of mods. I frequently read "don't do this or that because there's going to be a mod for that".

1. Only mod makers should have the right to say that.

2. I want to play a great STOCK game and have default systems as difficulty options, like KSP1 has.

3. Mods should not be a crutch to fix the game like in KSP1.

If I could play with 0 mods and have a great mainstream, balanced experience I would be the happiest.

[Snark]

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Agree with you about Kerbin and Mun tilt. Other planets and moons could use some tilt + wobble.

But what I really wanted to say it's that a lot of people in the community are abusing the idea of mods. I frequently read "don't do this or that because there's going to be a mod for that".

To be clear, when I say "I don't feel strongly one way or the other, about it, as long as it's easily moddable":  what I mean by that is, I believe that as a matter of game design, they should design the game to appeal to a broad audience and should give a lot of weight to making it fun and accessible to the majority of KSP players.  It's the right call.  It will make the player base the happiest (in the aggregate), which in turn will help sales, which will help encourage further development, which will benefit all the players, so everyone wins.

You'll note that I didn't say that they should design the game to appeal to me, personally.  That's because I am not a typical KSP player.  The typical KSP player finds it a challenge just to make it to the Mun, and going interplanetary at all, even when everything is zero axial tilt, is a major leap.  (I'm not being judgmental about that at all, merely commenting on what I perceive the statistics to be.)  I mean, sure, if they designed the whole game to appeal perfectly to my personal tastes, to the point I wouldn't want or need any mods at all, then that would be great, as far as my own play experience is concerned... but it would be pretty short-sighted of me to want them to do that.  Because my own idiosyncratic tastes are a tiny minority of what the overall player base wants.  If they designed the game to appeal specifically to me... they would render it less attractive to the large majority of their prospective customer base.  Which would tank the game's sales.  Which would pull the plug on any further funding, which means I would lose, in the long term.

Therefore, as  a self-interested, selfish player ... what I want is not a game that caters to my personal tastes.  I want a game I enjoy, sure, but what is really important is that lots of people need to find it fun.  That's what will get me the largest amount of sustained kerbal goodness into the future, so it's what I want.

Which means, I have to be okay with options that are less than what I, personally, would prefer to play with.  Personally, I think it's the right call for them to keep the home solar system's bodies at zero tilt, mainly because I think that will make the solar system more accessible to a lot of players-- without killing the enjoyment for me (after all, I've been happy to plow thousands of hours into KSP1, which doesn't have tilt at all).  I can get my jollies from having interesting planet designs in other systems (including tilt).

And in that context, when I say "I don't care much, as long as it's easily moddable", what I mean is:  that lets me, personally, tweak the home system as I like.  Which mitigates any angst I might feel about their correctly (in my opinion) deciding to leave the home bodies with no tilt.

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I want to play a great STOCK game and have default systems as difficulty options, like KSP1 has.

Well, sure, so do lots of people.  Heck, I was playing the game for a year-- I mean, a lot, more time than I'd ever plowed into most games-- before I ever installed my first mod.  Suppose the game had been built in a way that it was completely unmoddable.  I still would have enjoyed the heck out of it, I still would have plowed hundreds  of hours into it, I still would have been utterly happy with my purchase and convinced that I got my money's worth dozens of times over.  (But I probably would have eventually have gotten bored and wandered away from it after a year or two.)

I'm a little confused by your raising this point, though-- do you have some reason to believe that KSP2 won't be a good stock game?  Or that it won't have any difficulty options?  I haven't seen anything to indicate either of those two things to me, and was curious whether you've been reading something I haven't.

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Mods should not be a crutch to fix the game like in KSP1.

I agree that mods shouldn't be a crutch to fix the game.  I disagree that they are one in KSP1.

I'm sure it's possible to have a lengthy and spirited debate on that question ... but I won't go into it here, because it would be off-topic for this thread, which is specifically about axial tilts in KSP2.

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

If I could play with 0 mods and have a great mainstream, balanced experience I would be the happiest.

Same here.  My guess is that probably most players are in that boat, too.

(Even with a "great mainstream, balanced experience" that I can enjoy with 0 mods, though, I'd still eventually end up playing with mods, anyway, if only because they open the door to variety and help extend how long I'm likely to play it.)

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

I'm a little confused by your raising this point, though-- do you have some reason to believe that KSP2 won't be a good stock game?  Or that it won't have any difficulty options?  I haven't seen anything to indicate either of those two things to me, and was curious whether you've been reading something I haven't.

Very polite and balanced post. I have found no extra info about modding. The most complex answer was given by Mr. Paul Furio during the Purdue podcast. In summary, the team wants to look at the best modding experiences available and wants to use APIs to make everything accessible for modders.

I trust the dev team and testers to deliver a wonderful stock experience. I think stock KSP1 with DLCs is very underrated and has a lot of unexplored potential.

KAL1000 would have needed a recording function. See example below:

Same for multi-kerbal EVA construction - great stock feature, I feel like it's underrated and not really used.

But I also like mods a lot, because they have a direction to the game, they inspired KSP2.

The problem is that I see a lot of comments saying "dev team should not implement this feature in stock, someone will make a mod for it". There are a lot of cases where I just don't agree with this.

In KSP1 there are certain difficulty settings that totally change how the game is played. For example, not being able to revert to launch makes you test subassemblies a lot more. Losing probe control when there is no signal and reentry blackout makes you design better missions. Heat, pressure, G-Force sensitivity.. they are all great difficulty settings in stock.

As for mods.. Kerbalism SIMPLEX: 10/10. Game changing, a lot of it I believe should be implemented as stock difficulty settings!

So for KSP2 - I'm really glad we're getting stock life support, radiation, material resources. We should also get axial tilt and wobble, part wear and failure on excessive wear (not random), wind, communication limit by speed of light, and a lot of other stuff.. things that exist in real life, for players that want to play on Hard difficulty without mods. Of course, simplified as for the stock game, not extremely realistic.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Vl3d

[Vl3d]

PS: I'm still waiting for someone to create the first 70 km tower / space elevator using pre-programmed KAL1000 lifters.

[Snark]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The problem is that I see a lot of comments saying "dev team should not implement this feature in stock, someone will make a mod for it". There are a lot of cases where I just don't agree with this.

Fair 'nuff.

I think it's one of those things that really has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.  There are certainly situations where the devs shouldn't implement a feature, and it should be left up to modders.

The most common example of that would be if the feature is specialized enough that only a very tiny fraction of players would actually use it.  Software development is a zero-sum game, and spending more time on one thing means spending less time on another.  If less than 1% of the player base would use the feature... it would be better to just skip it, and spend that time instead on some feature that, say, 10% or more would use.  Leave the "under 1%" features to the modders.

So, trying to answer the question "should it be stock or should it be left to modders" requires having some idea of what percentage of users would use it... and as players, you and I don't necessarily have a good view on that, since we don't have access to any sort of statistics or focus groups or whatever.  So for any given feature, we can guess... but since it's just a guess, we could be wildly wrong.  And different people could come to different conclusions about how popular any given feature might be.

My impression has been that an awful lot of folks here on the forum vastly overestimate what the average KSP player does (in terms of how far past Kerbin's surface they get), and I think this can often lead them to propose features that "should be stock" that, IMO, really shouldn't be.

Speaking for myself:  I've seen quite a few discussions / arguments that fall into "they should make this stock!" / "no they shouldn't!" category... and I gotta say, in most such cases I've come across, I usually find myself agreeing with the "no they shouldn't" side.

Reasonable people can differ, obviously. 

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

We should also get axial tilt and wobble, part wear and failure on excessive wear (not random), wind, communication limit by speed of light, and a lot of other stuff.. things that exist in real life, for players that want to play on Hard difficulty without mods.

Having these things as difficulty settings potentially makes sense to me (depending on how many people would use them):

• non-random part wear and failure
• wind

Lightspeed communication limit is... potentially problematic, depending on how it meshes with the rest of the game design.  It's not at all clear to me that there's one "right" way to design it, and I fear it would add too much code and UI complexity, relative to the amount of challenge it adds.  (My impressions on this are based on playing with lightspeed delay turned on with RemoteTech, back in the pre-CommNet days.  It was fun to play with for a little while, but I ultimately concluded that it wasn't a feature I'd like to see in stock.)

I happen to think that axial tilt shouldn't be a difficulty setting, mainly because it involves the actual geography of the game and would fracture the community experience.  (For me, "turning various physical simulation types on and off" makes sense for difficulty, but "changing the actual physical behavior of things" shouldn't.)  The preceding couple of sentences are a very brief, over-simplified summary of a topic that I've thought a lot about, mainly because I figure I should spare you the multi-page rant. 

But it boils down to this:  I am with you on the subject of difficulty settings in general-- I think they're a powerful mechanism that allows a wide variety of skill levels of players to enjoy the game in their own way.  But for various verbose reasons, I don't think planetary configuration should be one of them.  I don't think that specific thing should be a difficulty setting.  I think that should be basically fixed, and that the way to accommodate players of differing abilities is in the universe design.  (i.e. "Kerbin is easiest, then Mun; then the solar system is harder; then the other solar systems are harder still.")

(I do think it would have been a good idea if they'd added one more planet to the stock system-- say, a Saturn analog like OPM's Sarnus, out past Jool-- which could have axial tilt and so forth.  This would provide useful and interesting gameplay, including axial-tilt features, without requiring the player to go interstellar.  It would also be a nice way to jazz up the home system, for those of us who have been staring at the same seven planets for the last decade...)

I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste. 

[Vl3d]

I agree with you.

[Superfluous J]

14 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Mods should not be a crutch to fix the game like in KSP1.

This discussion likely belongs in a different thread, and likely has occurred in different threads. Heck, I've likely participated in discussions just like this in different threads. But anyway

The big problem is most mods DO "fix" things in the game, and at the same time "break" them.

Giving Kerbin and Mun axial tilt "fixes" the game for me. But it "breaks" the game for others. Same with Life Support, light speed delay on probe control, 47 different resources to mine and process, and Scott Manley's face on all kerbals. None of these are in the game. Many people think that's a great thing, and many others want it there and mod their games to "fix" what they find broken.

Much like Snark, I'm totally cool with every single planet in the game (even the new ones) having 0 axial tilt, so long as I can change it for myself. Bonus if I can also offer those changes to others in a little downloadable mod.

[Vl3d]

18 hours ago, Snark said:

Lightspeed communication limit is... potentially problematic, depending on how it meshes with the rest of the game design.  It's not at all clear to me that there's one "right" way to design it, and I fear it would add too much code and UI complexity, relative to the amount of challenge it adds.  (My impressions on this are based on playing with lightspeed delay turned on with RemoteTech, back in the pre-CommNet days.  It was fun to play with for a little while, but I ultimately concluded that it wasn't a feature I'd like to see in stock.)

Lightspeed delayed communication that limits probe control can be implemented in stock in a very fun way if KSP2 will have a basic visual programming language like Vizzy in SR2 that works well with the Journey Planner.

This way we could experience one of the coolest feelings in Space Engineering: the "oh I hope I did a good job and it works, because it's out of my realtime control now".

The feeling of actually uploading software updates to remotely controlled probes and rovers.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Vl3d

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Lightspeed delayed communication that limits probe control can be implemented in stock in a very fun way if KSP2 will have a basic visual programming language

I want programming in KSP2, even visual if it's needed, but lightspeed delay would be an instant refund for me.

It's not fun, in any way or form.

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

This way we could experience one of the coolest feelings in Space Engineering: the "oh I hope I did a good job and it works, because it's out of my realtime control now".

Leave the craft without an antenna and the result it's exactly the same. Or implement your own version of signal delay into the probe's programming, it wouldn't be the hardest part of pre-programming a whole space mission at all.

 

Back in topic, this:

19 hours ago, Snark said:

I happen to think that axial tilt shouldn't be a difficulty setting, mainly because it involves the actual geography of the game and would fracture the community experience. 

The position of planet and moons should be the same regardless of the difficulty settings.

Let's also remember that with colonies being able to launch their own rockets It will be quite easy to set up different starts other than Kerbin if you want a different set of challenges for the beginning of your space program. I'd love to have a "stranded colony" option when you begin a new game that allows the player to start with a self-sufficient colony set up on a planet or moon of your choice.

[t_v]

2 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I want programming in KSP2, even visual if it's needed, but mandatory lightspeed delay would be an instant refund for me.

It's not fun, in any way or form.

Delay is a good example of something that can be implemented as part of difficulty, and as far as I’ve seen enough people like it to include it. Although, it might be a really easy mod. It’s up in the air if enough of the player base wants it to matter. 
 

6 minutes ago, Master39 said:

The position of planet and moons should be the same regardless of the difficulty settings.

Let's also remember that with colonies being able to launch their own rockets It will be quite easy to set up different starts other than Kerbin if you want a different set of challenges for the beginning of your space program. I'd love to have a "stranded colony" option when you begin a new game that allows the player to start with a self-sufficient colony set up on a planet or moon of your choice

And on the topic of inclinations with different starts, do you think there should be “easy tilt” planets in the late game, or should they all be more challenging? I know that physics dictates that a moon like Donk needs to be orbiting at Gurdamma’s equator because it is formed from the rings (?) but aside from those cases, I think that tilt shouldn’t become intentionally more extreme throughout the late game. High tilt planets pose a host of challenges beyond just landing (which might be a trivial increase in difficulty) with power generation, temperatures, and probably topography. I think that if every planet had this sort of tilt, it would make the unique challenges presented less unique. What do you think?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, t_v said:

Delay is a good example of something that can be implemented as part of difficulty,

It's not a difficulty thing but rather a fundental change in the design pillars of the game.

Without an autopilot would turn KSP into Zachtronics like programming game, with an autopilot would turn most of the difficulty away, replacing the player with the autopilot in most situations.

You're changing the POV of the entire game, from the player being the craft to the player being a guy sitting in mission control.

 

We can then argue if we want it or not, but it's not "just a difficulty setting" it's a fundamental change in the identity of the game.

[SciMan]

The "Fly" part of "build fly dream" means different things to different people.
Some people want to program their mission so it all happens on autopilot without them pressing a button other than "launch".
Some people want to fully manually pilot their vessel to wherever it's going.
Some people want the autopilot to handle the parts of flying a vessel that they're not as good at, so they can learn to do it better on their own
Some people have flown things manually so many times for a certain phase of the flight that it's no longer fun even if it's an entirely new vessel type that they've never flown thru that phase of flight before (that's where I am, I use MechJeb for launch landing and maneuver execution, not because I can't do it but because I've done it so many times that I'd rather just get it over with and get to the parts that I find actually fun).
Light speed communications delay might make a difference in some of these play styles more than others.
Light speed communications delay would also likely take time away from other more critical features of the game if it's not already in the game at this point.

IMO it belongs firmly in the "let the mods do it" category. But it would be nice if the game is coded in a way that makes such a thing not so difficult to implement.

But the main thing to take away from this post on this thread is that none of that matters as far as axial tilt on new or old planets in KSP 2.

Back on topic, about "axial tilts in the Kerbol system as a difficulty option" I don't particularly have a preference if it's done that way or not.
But if it IS done as a difficulty option, the only way to do it that makes sense to me is to have it be one of the difficulty options you set at the time you start the save file (aka you can't change it once you set it unless you either start an entirely new save or edit the save file with an external application if that's even potentially possible).
That's the only way that makes sense to me, because any other way of implementing it would mean that you could essentially "warp reality" in an entirely non-physical way. Considering how seriously KSP takes its physics simulations compared to other games (and even other space games at that), that kind of "reality warping" seems like a big no-no.

[Snark]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Lightspeed delayed communication that limits probe control can be implemented in stock in a very fun way

• I agree that it would be possible to implement in a way that would be fun for some players.
• I disagree, fairly strongly, that it belongs in the stock game.

But more to the point, this thread is about axial tilt, not about communication delays, so the whole matter is off-topic here.   

I certainly agree that the question of communication delays is an interesting one, and I think it would make a great thread under KSP2 Suggestions (if there isn't one already) where folks can debate the matter to their hearts' content.  However... probably best to drop the matter in this particular thread.