Talks about SFS upcoming Updates...
- Thread starter NodoY5
- Start date
Probably because of my lack of comprehension of the English language
That mass is definitively necessary, and as you can see, many people (myself included, obviously) want to have these tiny bubbleheaded beings, or whatever you want to call them, even if you claim they will have no functionality (and I still think they will come in handy) cause they enhance your gaming experience. I’m sure people wants them mostly to have fun with them, but I am also sure that there are people that will do cool things with their astronauts, things neither you or I can imagine right now.
“Transcending between 17 200 characters and 24 800 characters typed…. the very same arguments, eternally retold…”
Oh, dear gosh, again the same. How many times I’m gonna have to explain this to him? There’s a parody that fits the situation. There are probably better parodies, but that was the first one I came up with.
You definitively have NO imagination at all.
Soooooo… On the topic, one more time:
Noooooo… We don’t need a damage system to be implemented. The same way we pretend we make space station modules with fairings, interstages, filled fuel tank, why I cannot pretend my astronauts are repairing the cursed satellite even if there is no damage system implemented?
That is what I’ve been trying to say all along… hence why I’ve said things like: SFS is game, not a life style. Things that were either misunderstood or gone with the wind.
Surely can be done remotely, but why not do it with people?
Also, SFS may not have rocks, but has craters, and from its first release to its future last update, people has and will continue to, breaking and flipping their rovers on any crater they find. Not sure you, but I certainly have this problem, I use to quicksave every 20 seconds of rovering.
So, let me use one your arguments against you: your main argument in all this debate is that there is no actual difference between using probes and using people (I still think there is), so according to that you can either chose between probes and astronauts and will still be the same, right? Then what is the problem with doing it with people?? You want to do it with probes, I want to do it with people.
Is there no difference between do this with probes, and do it with astronauts? Fine, I’ll do it with astronauts.
Very funny… but no.
Stuff that will require a quick and on-site response and the expertise of an actual mastermind in the matter to make decisions. If you want to do something like this on a faraway planet, you’re gonna need a guy to be there to do this job, you can’t do it with an Earth-controlled machine, cause your experiment will fail/explode if you have to wait hours for the message and response to travel through space.
Better now?
Are you using this argument to prove, once again, that astronauts are useless?
If so, you’ve made one little mistake:
You said that you don’t need astronauts on site, because you have an un-manned QRF on site, whose astronaut controllers are also, on site?
There’s small contradiction there, unless there’s a ‘subtle difference’ I’m not seeing. You’ve just said yourself that you need astronaut controllers on site. So, basically, you’ve given yourself a reason to send your astronauts to space.
Jokes aside, what I meant is that, if your manned ship crashes on a planet, even if you have an unmanned QRF on site, if they have to broadcast a distress signal to Earth, await for it to reach its destination, await for the ground team to make critical decisions, await the answer to reach the QRF and await for the QRF to reach them, they’ll be dead before the reinforcements arrive.
To think, Horus.
A machine can’t think, only can follow its programming. I can.
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that requires thinking, something like a complicated space mission, my fellow humans and me will do it better than a machine.
And before you claim that we will develop human-like AI before we reach the outer planets, I personally believe AIs will never reach human intelligence, mostly because us humans will not allow a Terminator-style future (you know, that old sentence that, if they are smarter than us, why they should serve us?). But this is not the topic on discussion.
But still, giving that the current AI has basically the same IQ than a cockroach, and that I believe we will reach Mars within this century, and the AI will obviously still won’t be intelligent enough to replace us in 100 percent of tasks, you will still need people to control the machines, cause if you’re on Mars, the response time is 1 hour, and I don’t have to say that in 1 hour your experiment will fail and your downed crew will die.
NASA does all they can, not all they want. That’s what I’m saying.
That’s a severe lack of imagination by your side, not NASA’s. The thing is that NASA does it like that because that’s enough to do the task they are designed to do. Granted, you can copy NASA and do it like that, but you’re on a game, where you don’t have the limitations of money, tech…. all the ones I mentioned above, that NASA has in RL. So, if you make all your modules like that and think this is the best and the only way to do it, that’s lack of imagination, cause you are not forced to make them like that, and certainly you can make them better and cooler.
Cool down those flames, Sir. I’m not letting you do that.
First of all, to cool you dawn:
Wrong completely wrong.
Remember a while ago when you told me I cannot say there is no astronaut on the capsule, cause there is a single line of flat text saying there is? Then I can tell you that you have absolutely no physical evidence that there is a door on the other side, while I have the physical evidence that there isn’t. It’s the same situation.
The same way I cannot say the capsule is empty, you cannot say is not empty cause it has no way to get in. We’re kinda stuck on a tie, so let me break it.
I understand your point, in the game there is supposed to be an astronaut inside the capsule, but the thing is that is we cannot see him, we cannot drive him, we can’t make him do anything, its basically fake, inexistent, that’s my point. (No, I’m NOT saying invisible things are inexistent, but in this frame, in this context, in this very VERY specific case, they are).
When 1.6 is released and we have ACTUAL astronauts that we can see, drive and walk around with, they will become as part of this game as fuel tanks and engines are.
Chiller down now, flame boy?
I might not have chosen my argument correctly…
But the thing is you completely missed my point just because an example poorly chosen. I meant it shouldn’t be too hard to implement a couple of habitable modules among the game parts.
Funny, but no.
•How about if there are other capsules containing more astronauts?
•How about if there is a section containing modules for space stations? You know, those who have astronauts inside?
•How about if 1.51 brings an actual difference between using a probe and using a capsule?
•How about if we can hear some random radio chatting in the background during a mission?
•How about if there’s a warning for high TWR rockets saying: ‘Your astronauts will not tolerate the high G during the ascent’?
These are just ideas, JUST IDEAS, to make astronauts participate a little more in the game. You implement one, maybe a couple, maybe even three of those, and will be easier to feel that you are using actual astronauts than right now, where you only have 5 words mentioning their existence.
More evidence that you have NO imagination.
That mass is definitively necessary, and as you can see, many people (myself included, obviously) want to have these tiny bubbleheaded beings, or whatever you want to call them, even if you claim they will have no functionality (and I still think they will come in handy) cause they enhance your gaming experience. I’m sure people wants them mostly to have fun with them, but I am also sure that there are people that will do cool things with their astronauts, things neither you or I can imagine right now.
“Transcending between 17 200 characters and 24 800 characters typed…. the very same arguments, eternally retold…”
Oh, dear gosh, again the same. How many times I’m gonna have to explain this to him? There’s a parody that fits the situation. There are probably better parodies, but that was the first one I came up with.
You definitively have NO imagination at all.
Soooooo… On the topic, one more time:
Noooooo… We don’t need a damage system to be implemented. The same way we pretend we make space station modules with fairings, interstages, filled fuel tank, why I cannot pretend my astronauts are repairing the cursed satellite even if there is no damage system implemented?
That is what I’ve been trying to say all along… hence why I’ve said things like: SFS is game, not a life style. Things that were either misunderstood or gone with the wind.
Surely can be done remotely, but why not do it with people?
Also, SFS may not have rocks, but has craters, and from its first release to its future last update, people has and will continue to, breaking and flipping their rovers on any crater they find. Not sure you, but I certainly have this problem, I use to quicksave every 20 seconds of rovering.
So, let me use one your arguments against you: your main argument in all this debate is that there is no actual difference between using probes and using people (I still think there is), so according to that you can either chose between probes and astronauts and will still be the same, right? Then what is the problem with doing it with people?? You want to do it with probes, I want to do it with people.
Is there no difference between do this with probes, and do it with astronauts? Fine, I’ll do it with astronauts.
Very funny… but no.
Stuff that will require a quick and on-site response and the expertise of an actual mastermind in the matter to make decisions. If you want to do something like this on a faraway planet, you’re gonna need a guy to be there to do this job, you can’t do it with an Earth-controlled machine, cause your experiment will fail/explode if you have to wait hours for the message and response to travel through space.
Better now?
Are you using this argument to prove, once again, that astronauts are useless?
If so, you’ve made one little mistake:
You said that you don’t need astronauts on site, because you have an un-manned QRF on site, whose astronaut controllers are also, on site?
There’s small contradiction there, unless there’s a ‘subtle difference’ I’m not seeing. You’ve just said yourself that you need astronaut controllers on site. So, basically, you’ve given yourself a reason to send your astronauts to space.
Jokes aside, what I meant is that, if your manned ship crashes on a planet, even if you have an unmanned QRF on site, if they have to broadcast a distress signal to Earth, await for it to reach its destination, await for the ground team to make critical decisions, await the answer to reach the QRF and await for the QRF to reach them, they’ll be dead before the reinforcements arrive.
To think, Horus.
A machine can’t think, only can follow its programming. I can.
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that requires thinking, something like a complicated space mission, my fellow humans and me will do it better than a machine.
And before you claim that we will develop human-like AI before we reach the outer planets, I personally believe AIs will never reach human intelligence, mostly because us humans will not allow a Terminator-style future (you know, that old sentence that, if they are smarter than us, why they should serve us?). But this is not the topic on discussion.
But still, giving that the current AI has basically the same IQ than a cockroach, and that I believe we will reach Mars within this century, and the AI will obviously still won’t be intelligent enough to replace us in 100 percent of tasks, you will still need people to control the machines, cause if you’re on Mars, the response time is 1 hour, and I don’t have to say that in 1 hour your experiment will fail and your downed crew will die.
NASA does all they can, not all they want. That’s what I’m saying.
That’s a severe lack of imagination by your side, not NASA’s. The thing is that NASA does it like that because that’s enough to do the task they are designed to do. Granted, you can copy NASA and do it like that, but you’re on a game, where you don’t have the limitations of money, tech…. all the ones I mentioned above, that NASA has in RL. So, if you make all your modules like that and think this is the best and the only way to do it, that’s lack of imagination, cause you are not forced to make them like that, and certainly you can make them better and cooler.
Cool down those flames, Sir. I’m not letting you do that.
First of all, to cool you dawn:
Wrong completely wrong.
Remember a while ago when you told me I cannot say there is no astronaut on the capsule, cause there is a single line of flat text saying there is? Then I can tell you that you have absolutely no physical evidence that there is a door on the other side, while I have the physical evidence that there isn’t. It’s the same situation.
The same way I cannot say the capsule is empty, you cannot say is not empty cause it has no way to get in. We’re kinda stuck on a tie, so let me break it.
I understand your point, in the game there is supposed to be an astronaut inside the capsule, but the thing is that is we cannot see him, we cannot drive him, we can’t make him do anything, its basically fake, inexistent, that’s my point. (No, I’m NOT saying invisible things are inexistent, but in this frame, in this context, in this very VERY specific case, they are).
When 1.6 is released and we have ACTUAL astronauts that we can see, drive and walk around with, they will become as part of this game as fuel tanks and engines are.
Chiller down now, flame boy?
I might not have chosen my argument correctly…
But the thing is you completely missed my point just because an example poorly chosen. I meant it shouldn’t be too hard to implement a couple of habitable modules among the game parts.
Funny, but no.
•How about if there are other capsules containing more astronauts?
•How about if there is a section containing modules for space stations? You know, those who have astronauts inside?
•How about if 1.51 brings an actual difference between using a probe and using a capsule?
•How about if we can hear some random radio chatting in the background during a mission?
•How about if there’s a warning for high TWR rockets saying: ‘Your astronauts will not tolerate the high G during the ascent’?
These are just ideas, JUST IDEAS, to make astronauts participate a little more in the game. You implement one, maybe a couple, maybe even three of those, and will be easier to feel that you are using actual astronauts than right now, where you only have 5 words mentioning their existence.
More evidence that you have NO imagination.
It doesn’t have to be that realistic.
But, come on, is not so hard to understand that if your probe run out of electricity it will die. If I remember correctly, Stef said there will be more stuff that consume electricity in the future, possibly including probes, so people better get used to it.
As for capsules, once again, it doesn’t have to be that realistic. You don’t have to simulate every aspect of human behavior/psychology.
IF more capsules are ever implemented, then each capsule could have a determined consumption of life support depending on their number of occupants, if no other capsules are added, then the existing one. Then there could also be modules that generate lifesupport. So, for example, lets assume the capsule consumes 2 lifesupport per minutes, then you need enough lifesupport modules to generate 2 LS per minute. I think is not so hard to understand.
Just some ideas.
And, to be honest, and I mean, really honest, I don’t think any of these features will be implemented. Just astronauts will be. And to be even more honest, I don’t think they should have an age limit, mostly because we don’t have the super computers NASA has and most of us do VEEGA by orbiting the Sun 1000 times until we get an encounter…
Well, yeah. That is realistic, that is what would happen in RL. The LEM couldn’t have find its way back to the CSM without Neil and Buzz.
There are fully automated manned crafts, like the Buran, that can do its mission totally automated but still carries a crew, but this is just because they have powerful computers. So, if you don’t want your ship becomes space debris when you walk outside you can either add a probe core below the capsule or use multiple capsules and leave always at least one astronaut on board.
Yes, before you say it, I am supporting your point that astronauts will be more dry mass, but I am also supporting my point that astronauts will make the game more interesting, different and with more variety.
Well, yeah, that would be cool. Can’t either.
I can definitively imagine they are in there, but why do you can’t imagine outside and walking around another planet? Apparently, you prefer to reject them like you are.
TEA?!
I’m on the Coffee side, dude.
I don’t think the game needs rework to make the astronauts useful, their sole presence will make them useful, even if there is not a damage system, or rocks to trap your rovers, or even science instruments, cause we have imagination and we can imagine them repairing the satellite even if the satellite is not actually damaged.
As for the added dry mass, that only makes want to include them in my missions even more.
Goooooooodddd… I miss 1.4.06… and I envy you for still having it… I completely hate 1.5. I mean 1.5, could have been… the best update in the history of SFS… but all those bugs… ALL THOSE BUGS who we all waited 6 months to be fixed, are what ruins 1.5… I would give anything for a 1.4.06 with DLC right now…
But I’m off-topic, we are talking 1.4.06 with 1.35 aerodynamics here. Yes, it could have been a LOT better…
However, with astronauts all 3 options will be available. You can choose between:
A)- Lift the whole crashed ship like you did with ACS Aspire.
B)- Connect a duct to the downed ship and transfer the living and the dead astronauts.
C)- Go EVA and walk your astronauts to your rescue ship.
D)- Something else I haven’t come up with.
None of these options negates the others. Having astronauts simply unlocks one more option, which surely many players will take. That doesn’t mean you can’t use the other ones.
Okay, I was a little extremist by saying they only existed because they are related to spaceflight and because people wanted it. I’ll fix that later. For now, let’s check out your answer.
Clarification: What I didn’t quote in your answer, is because I agree with it.
Neither astronauts will, as I’ve tried to prove above.
And how hard could it be to implement a system that gathers science and awards players for it. Many games, have systems that encourage players to pickup things and use them to unlock other things.
This probably makes no sense right now, but look at the roadmap. SFS 1.7 will bring a Career system, this is not my idea/suggestion, is Stef’s. So, what if the science parts are the means to gather… I don’t know… whatever you need to gather to unlock everything?
Definitively no, but all you have to do is to restrict the use of prefabricated science parts. The same way you said: ‘Cheats are for sissys, and you are not a sissy, don’t you?’. Just say: ‘Cheats AND SCIENCE PARTS are for sissys, and you are not a sissy, don’t you? You have to make them yourself.’
Le Verrier still fits, and will be cool, in an SFS with science parts.
I know, lol. We have like 5 new of these rockets everyday in the downloads section.
I disagree on that. We all have the very same fuel tanks, engines, fairings, solar panels, struts, etc, yet still, our builds are definitively different. Your Excaliber and my Hakuren have the same fuel tanks and engines, yet still they look and work different. Your Solarmaster IRAC and my Landstalker rovers have the same solar panels and RTGs and wheels and they still look and work different. Hell, that rocket with a TWR above 6 you saw on the downloads section uses the same engines than the Tsar rocket!
Having the same parts will definitively not make all our builds look the same, cause it’s the way to combine them and the player’s creativity what makes our builds what they are.
Having proper habitation modules will only make our builds more realistic cause we will have specialized parts, not all the same cause not all of us think and build the same way.
Besides, no one will be forced to use the same habitation module. If those modules do not fulfill the requirements you need for your super sci-fi science space station, you can use your imagination, and represent them with other parts.
Same goes for science modules, if you don’t want to use them, don’t use them. Just because you can move the launchpad anywhere means that automatically everyone will spawn a Saturn V on Deimos? Definitively not.
Okay, I admit that some prefabricated parts shouldn’t be implemented, like this one. But still, would you modify your Excaliber to fit that SFS nose section/crew cabin? No. I will definitively keep my Hakuren as it is. You are not forced to use it only because it exists.
Having it will just give you another option.
EXACTLY
Not because they have different parts, they do have the exact same parts, it’s the way we used them what makes our shuttles different and unique.
Better now?
(Sorry for the low quality of the image)
I hope I’m nearly there, Master. I am already feeling the Waffle side of the Force… The Waffling energy… feels so strong around us…
Alright, those were 20 663 characters including spaces, or 17 194 without spaces distributed around 3570 words. Add that to all I’ve written before and you have a PhD in pro-astronaut opinions.
But, come on, is not so hard to understand that if your probe run out of electricity it will die. If I remember correctly, Stef said there will be more stuff that consume electricity in the future, possibly including probes, so people better get used to it.
As for capsules, once again, it doesn’t have to be that realistic. You don’t have to simulate every aspect of human behavior/psychology.
IF more capsules are ever implemented, then each capsule could have a determined consumption of life support depending on their number of occupants, if no other capsules are added, then the existing one. Then there could also be modules that generate lifesupport. So, for example, lets assume the capsule consumes 2 lifesupport per minutes, then you need enough lifesupport modules to generate 2 LS per minute. I think is not so hard to understand.
Just some ideas.
And, to be honest, and I mean, really honest, I don’t think any of these features will be implemented. Just astronauts will be. And to be even more honest, I don’t think they should have an age limit, mostly because we don’t have the super computers NASA has and most of us do VEEGA by orbiting the Sun 1000 times until we get an encounter…
Well, yeah. That is realistic, that is what would happen in RL. The LEM couldn’t have find its way back to the CSM without Neil and Buzz.
There are fully automated manned crafts, like the Buran, that can do its mission totally automated but still carries a crew, but this is just because they have powerful computers. So, if you don’t want your ship becomes space debris when you walk outside you can either add a probe core below the capsule or use multiple capsules and leave always at least one astronaut on board.
Yes, before you say it, I am supporting your point that astronauts will be more dry mass, but I am also supporting my point that astronauts will make the game more interesting, different and with more variety.
Well, yeah, that would be cool. Can’t either.
I can definitively imagine they are in there, but why do you can’t imagine outside and walking around another planet? Apparently, you prefer to reject them like you are.
TEA?!
I’m on the Coffee side, dude.
I don’t think the game needs rework to make the astronauts useful, their sole presence will make them useful, even if there is not a damage system, or rocks to trap your rovers, or even science instruments, cause we have imagination and we can imagine them repairing the satellite even if the satellite is not actually damaged.
As for the added dry mass, that only makes want to include them in my missions even more.
Goooooooodddd… I miss 1.4.06… and I envy you for still having it… I completely hate 1.5. I mean 1.5, could have been… the best update in the history of SFS… but all those bugs… ALL THOSE BUGS who we all waited 6 months to be fixed, are what ruins 1.5… I would give anything for a 1.4.06 with DLC right now…
But I’m off-topic, we are talking 1.4.06 with 1.35 aerodynamics here. Yes, it could have been a LOT better…
However, with astronauts all 3 options will be available. You can choose between:
A)- Lift the whole crashed ship like you did with ACS Aspire.
B)- Connect a duct to the downed ship and transfer the living and the dead astronauts.
C)- Go EVA and walk your astronauts to your rescue ship.
D)- Something else I haven’t come up with.
None of these options negates the others. Having astronauts simply unlocks one more option, which surely many players will take. That doesn’t mean you can’t use the other ones.
Okay, I was a little extremist by saying they only existed because they are related to spaceflight and because people wanted it. I’ll fix that later. For now, let’s check out your answer.
Clarification: What I didn’t quote in your answer, is because I agree with it.
Neither astronauts will, as I’ve tried to prove above.
And how hard could it be to implement a system that gathers science and awards players for it. Many games, have systems that encourage players to pickup things and use them to unlock other things.
This probably makes no sense right now, but look at the roadmap. SFS 1.7 will bring a Career system, this is not my idea/suggestion, is Stef’s. So, what if the science parts are the means to gather… I don’t know… whatever you need to gather to unlock everything?
Definitively no, but all you have to do is to restrict the use of prefabricated science parts. The same way you said: ‘Cheats are for sissys, and you are not a sissy, don’t you?’. Just say: ‘Cheats AND SCIENCE PARTS are for sissys, and you are not a sissy, don’t you? You have to make them yourself.’
Le Verrier still fits, and will be cool, in an SFS with science parts.
I know, lol. We have like 5 new of these rockets everyday in the downloads section.
I disagree on that. We all have the very same fuel tanks, engines, fairings, solar panels, struts, etc, yet still, our builds are definitively different. Your Excaliber and my Hakuren have the same fuel tanks and engines, yet still they look and work different. Your Solarmaster IRAC and my Landstalker rovers have the same solar panels and RTGs and wheels and they still look and work different. Hell, that rocket with a TWR above 6 you saw on the downloads section uses the same engines than the Tsar rocket!
Having the same parts will definitively not make all our builds look the same, cause it’s the way to combine them and the player’s creativity what makes our builds what they are.
Having proper habitation modules will only make our builds more realistic cause we will have specialized parts, not all the same cause not all of us think and build the same way.
Besides, no one will be forced to use the same habitation module. If those modules do not fulfill the requirements you need for your super sci-fi science space station, you can use your imagination, and represent them with other parts.
Same goes for science modules, if you don’t want to use them, don’t use them. Just because you can move the launchpad anywhere means that automatically everyone will spawn a Saturn V on Deimos? Definitively not.
Okay, I admit that some prefabricated parts shouldn’t be implemented, like this one. But still, would you modify your Excaliber to fit that SFS nose section/crew cabin? No. I will definitively keep my Hakuren as it is. You are not forced to use it only because it exists.
Having it will just give you another option.
EXACTLY
Not because they have different parts, they do have the exact same parts, it’s the way we used them what makes our shuttles different and unique.
Better now?
(Sorry for the low quality of the image)
I hope I’m nearly there, Master. I am already feeling the Waffle side of the Force… The Waffling energy… feels so strong around us…
Alright, those were 20 663 characters including spaces, or 17 194 without spaces distributed around 3570 words. Add that to all I’ve written before and you have a PhD in pro-astronaut opinions.
It would certainly be handy if astronauts could get out and push my rovers occasionally
Biological brains aren’t binary systems, even the workings of a cockroach’s nervous system can only be crudely imitated by computer function, especially if we extend it into the complexities of gene expression and system function;
But even ‘simple’ neuron activity isn’t binary, each neuron has many pathways and intensity potentials that no binary computer could ever hope to duplicate...just keep breeding smarter humans and technology will improve but never get ahead of us, or it won’t improve if we don’t get more intelligent
And what the hell is artificial intelligence anyway?
That phrase makes no grammatical sense, Algorithmic Intelligence makes sense and describes a very dimwitted mechanical problem solving skill;
If the robots were commanded to achieve supreme efficiency they wouldn’t kill all humans and build robot factories, they’d just shut down and not bother...very efficient
...and that’s why we need astronauts!
Not because we must, but because we are interested;
Robots help us, but they are stupid
Marmilo
Retired Staff / Scale Inspector
TEAM HAWK
Atlas
Fly me to the Moon
Under Pressure
Copycat
Registered
MOTY 2022
BANDWITH
Embodiment of Made In Abyss spoilers
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Man on the Moon
Registered
Aight, I have to kick this damn thread a few more times to make sure it’s dead, here goes...
So. Ambient sounds.
List of ideas:
So. Ambient sounds.
List of ideas:
- Hollow wind, based on the density of the atmosphere and cloud velocity in the planet file.
- Random icy/rocky clunk every now and then based on location. (in rings, perhaps?)
- Occasional radio static.
- Negative sound, fades out/abruptly stops all music for a short period.
- Thunder. (Probably on Venus)
- Light hum when zoomed in on electric parts.
- Sounds for when you land or drive around on certain surfaces.
- Powering down noises when you run out of power.
- Geiger counter clicking. (Jupiter, Van Allen belts)
- Rocks or ice falling/cracking.
- Light sizzle from fuel tanks in hot places and from engines in atmosphere after being turned off.
- Loud metal bangs in dangerous locations/situations. (Reentry, low orbits, VENUS)
- Icy twinkling/freezing noises in cold places.
- Radio equipment (if added) will have beepy “conversations” with home when connected. (Can be decoded, but is mostly nonsensical, like what is displayed in enchanting tables. May occasionally be a space-related joke.)
- Capsules/habitats will make shitting and screaming noises when going over terrain at high speeds.
Attachments
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
Nyet. It's additional content that he's gonna have to put a metric fuck ton of graft into implementing properly. It's not just a case of waving your hand and going
'You have a career mode now.'
He'll have to create a sequential, tiered list of missions. Implement some kind of cost/reward metric. Plan out the missions, place assets in required locations, create code so the game recognises win and lose conditions. It's a lot harder than it looks as well, I've set a few scenario based missions and even without having an automated reward/cost/failure system, free from bugs an exploits, it took ages planning and placing things.
You want him to create 10-20-30 of these, but then you get it for nothing?
And it's not like he didn't give sufficient notice to get the DLC before it was upped in price either.
Anyway, where were we...
Aaah yes, that horse is dead. BRING ME MY CAT'O'NINE TAILS!
You're almost there man. It's only the first 5 words that ruin it. They aren't definitively necessary, because there is no definitive reason for them. There is a difference between a necessity (a need) and what you would like (a want). A need is something you absolutely can not do without. A want is something you would like. An example is you need food, water, shelter, because without which you will die. But you want nice things, a mansion, Jaguar F-Type, newest phone, bestest computer, a fucking battleship, whatever it is you're onto. They're not necessary, but would be good to have for the sake of themselves.
You want bubbleheaded things. People want them to have fun (or kill them, whichever). Players want to do 'cool things' with them.
But you don't need them. Because the game works perfectly well without them. Hence why they are not necessary. Definitively.
I'm not saying you can't. I pretend that as well. Hence why I don't need pixellated astronauts. Cos I can pretend they exist...
Love how you think you're going to be landing your craft, little Buzz gets out, walks over to the trapped/flipped rover and moves the rocks/flips the rover back over. This isn't The Last Jedi or Halo where he's going to be moving rocks with the power of his mind (fuck you Rey you bland, overpowered mary sue waste of a script) or using a power armoured suit and gene-enhanced strength.
It's gonna be a dude in an EVA suit trying not to break the glass on his visor. What will actually happen is you'll land in a rescue version of the SCS line, little Buzz will transfer internally to another vehicle with some kind of crane/bulldozer system (using pistons and hinges, things that the game needs more than astronauts). That vehicle will do all the heavy lifting/righting/moving.
Whilst the Astronaut is inside.
Out of view.
Being irrelevant, cos the vehicle may as well be remotely controlled and save mass on life support.
Or pretend there is an astronaut in the vehicle (like we have been doing) and save someone the time coding for nothing...
What like? Unless little Buzz has a little laboratory on his EVA suit, he's still going to need to take the samples back to another location to be analysed. So why not send an automated or remote operated machine to do it...?
What kind of experiment would explode? Are they digging out explosive moon rocks? What kind of scenario has this kind of time penalty, that wouldn't run out anyway whilst the sample is being delivered to wherever it's being analysed?
That's not a reason for EVA astronauts to exist. You can pretend (remember that word...) that the moon base you've got is manned by people inside, have the samples collected by remote and brought back without risking the crew.
Yeah, you have. The subtle difference is the EVA part. You can 'pretend' (here it is again) that you have a manned controller station with an automated response network.
That means this:
Isn't a thing. The distress call would go to the on-planet control centre. They would task the closest autonomous response facility. And because it is automated, they can be placed everywhere and be left on standby almost indefinitely with very little resource cost compared to a similar amount of coverage with human crews.
Very true.
However
Crew Dragon basically flies itself. Same with Buran. The vast majority of modern and even not modern vehicles are the same. Concorde could be flown 'hands off' as soon as it hits the runway. Its on-board systems react far quicker and more effectively than the pilots can and it could land itself. The RAF Typhoon is flown by its onboard computer as no human pilot could ever hope keep it stable in flight. Tesla cars can take you to a destination following a satnav without driver input. The Terramax automated truck can select off-road routes using a collection of sensors and GPS mapping inputs, alter the truck set up to suit the terrain and find its way from point to point without a driver. Audi entered a fully autonomous rally car into the Dakar a few years back. I have seen with my own eyes an AI controlled race car learn the Goodwood hill climb.
Infact, the Terramax is a perfect example here. Cos it can also be piloted remotely from anywhere on Earth if it does manage to get itself into trouble, so you get the best of both worlds.
AI is evolving so quickly that even Elon Musk is shitting himself about it and this exact scenario happening. He is one of the loudest voices calling for the control and careful research / use of AI. And when you remember that most of his equipment is automated tells you something.
I'd like to see a cockroach land an F9 booster. Or control the fuel balance and intake geometry of Concorde. Or answer contextual questions to a level that almost beats the Turing Test. They have AI designing cars (not building, designing cars) and planning surgeries. The latter is so efficient it can interpret MRI and other imagery to plan the optimum surgery and present that information to a surgeon inside 10 seconds.
But Horus, you purveyor of excess verbiage you, the surgeon is still doing the surgery.
For now. They've already started using remote operated surgical robots and it's only a very short matter of time before someone has the legal balls to let an algorithm behind the scalpel.
And again, your single, central control centre is on Mars, so the information is taking seconds to get to the machine and if it gets to a stage it has no answer for, then the humans remotely take over.
Eh? The modules will still be cylindrical and will still be made of metal. Whether they use aluminium, titanium or slightly melted chocolate smarties, it's still a tube with airlocks at each end. Also, I want to see the senator that says to NASA 'I know you want to make the ISS out of this material because its safer, but continue using aluminium because it's slightly cheaper and we'll just take the risk.'
Well what would you make them out of ? Rectangles? Plastic? Apart from making holes in the side for windows, they're still going to be tubes with airlocks.
Just warming myself up upon the burning embers of this paragraph.
Last edited:
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
No it's not. You have zero evidence the door doesn't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (A cookie for someone who gets the reference).
Admittedly, all I have a line of text. But you have nothing.
No, let me break it. Stef says there is someone in there. Tie broken.
Ya kinda are.
Yeah, because there is no reason to see him, no reason to drive him outside. It keeps an inherently simple game...simple...using implied astronauts than EVA ones.
Apparently. I'm yet to be convinced they are essential rather than a fancy.
Fun isn’t something one considers when balancing SFS. But this… did put a smile on my face.
I entirely got your point. I burned it because of its poor execution. It'd be very easy to implement. Take a fuel tank. Empty it out. Stick airlocks on either side. Punch holes in the middle and make the gaps blue Write a few words in the tool tip 'fits 16 dudes' and you're done.
Well, lets go through your ideas then dude...
Why not? If you want a TWR speed limiter cos physiology realism, then I want probe battery consumption, astronaut ageing, life support consumption. If you're gonna do it, do it properly.
You say that. Have you seen the state of certain areas of the fanbase? I only have to direct your attention to the one star comments section on Google Play.
no. Just the bits that you want so they're implemented, but have no resource/realism costs.
I hope he does. And it adds that added layer of complexity to ensure success. Want to take astronauts to Neptune? Then you're gonna have to work for it.
Yeah, I know. I was being sarcastic...
Same here. Sarcasm. In the scope of things, I would rather wait for anything else, including the heat-death of the universe.
I can imagine that. You can't, hence why you want them physically represented...
We can't all be perfect.
Nah man. Something isn't useful because of itself. That's not how it works. That's the difference between art and design. Design exists for a reason. Art exists solely for the purpose of itself.
Unless that dry mass is the extra fuel for a direct burn to Jupiter to keep them alive...
The legal 1.4.06 mod apk is still on the forum dude. 1.5 should've been awesome, but it's new code so the bug stomping has gone back to scratch with a whole host of new ones to play with. To be fair, I'd take an extra 1000m/s to orbit with broken drag physics and still be able to dock when I get to orbit.
No, it doesn't. Or you can just land next door and...imagine...
I think career will need quite a large patch / update to be done properly. If career is going to be more than just a lot of 'land on X planet' jobs, then there's going to need to be a lot of things implemented first. Each mission will be a loaded quicksave, could be a rocket he's built you have to get to orbit or a returnable booster he's set up to land or like I did for you guys with objects scattered around the system you needed to move and interact with based on scenarios.
Many games do have that. But those games were designed from the outset with awards and tasks in mind **cough** Kerbal Space Program **cough**.
SFS was just an open sandbox. Here's infinite resources and almost infinite space to use. Go nuts, like a kid given unlimited lego and a warehouse to store his creations. This isn't something you can tack onto the game. If you want science to be more than just 'imagination' then it'll need doing properly and embedding into the core of the game, even if its just a method of knowing how much 'science' is available in a location, how much you can get with what kit you have and how you collect it and then implement a tech tree system that is balanced.
They're not a cheat or an exploit though. How can you restrict the use of a 'vital part of the game' from being used in the method it was intended to be used?! It's not like ion engines where they're ridiculously over-powered (and even then, most challenges won't/can't ban the use). It's like banning stock landing legs and saying you must use home made ones (probably the only challenge that'd bring Danny Batten out of hiding).
And why would you campaign for the inclusion of a part that you're now suggesting be banned from the kind of challenges you wanted the damn things implemented for in the first place!?
Admittedly, all I have a line of text. But you have nothing.
No, let me break it. Stef says there is someone in there. Tie broken.
Ya kinda are.
Yeah, because there is no reason to see him, no reason to drive him outside. It keeps an inherently simple game...simple...using implied astronauts than EVA ones.
Apparently. I'm yet to be convinced they are essential rather than a fancy.
Fun isn’t something one considers when balancing SFS. But this… did put a smile on my face.
I entirely got your point. I burned it because of its poor execution. It'd be very easy to implement. Take a fuel tank. Empty it out. Stick airlocks on either side. Punch holes in the middle and make the gaps blue Write a few words in the tool tip 'fits 16 dudes' and you're done.
Well, lets go through your ideas then dude...
- How about if there are other capsules containing more astronauts? bigger ones, so you can have the same problem with the smaller one. 'There are no doors, so no one is inside'
- How about if there is a section containing modules for space stations? You know, those who have astronauts inside? That you can make yourself. You know, using your 'imagination'
- How about if 1.51 brings an actual difference between using a probe and using a capsule? What operational difference is there?
- How about if we can hear some random radio chatting in the background during a mission? Not a bad idea from an immersion standpoint. Not sure that'd prove the existence of astronauts, unless the chatter was contextual to events on screen. And there is only a small number of times I can hear the word 'nominal' before I press mute. Side note, talking about radio chatter dragged up a random memory of a RTS game I used to play which had random radio noises in the soundtrack. Loved that game, so just downloaded it to play again.
- How about if there’s a warning for high TWR rockets saying: ‘Your astronauts will not tolerate the high G during the ascent’? Physiologically, they will do. Especially seated in the right direction. It won't be comfortable, but they won't die from it. If anything, the electronics and structure will break before the crew does.
Why not? If you want a TWR speed limiter cos physiology realism, then I want probe battery consumption, astronaut ageing, life support consumption. If you're gonna do it, do it properly.
You say that. Have you seen the state of certain areas of the fanbase? I only have to direct your attention to the one star comments section on Google Play.
no. Just the bits that you want so they're implemented, but have no resource/realism costs.
I hope he does. And it adds that added layer of complexity to ensure success. Want to take astronauts to Neptune? Then you're gonna have to work for it.
Yeah, I know. I was being sarcastic...
Same here. Sarcasm. In the scope of things, I would rather wait for anything else, including the heat-death of the universe.
I can imagine that. You can't, hence why you want them physically represented...
We can't all be perfect.
Nah man. Something isn't useful because of itself. That's not how it works. That's the difference between art and design. Design exists for a reason. Art exists solely for the purpose of itself.
Unless that dry mass is the extra fuel for a direct burn to Jupiter to keep them alive...
The legal 1.4.06 mod apk is still on the forum dude. 1.5 should've been awesome, but it's new code so the bug stomping has gone back to scratch with a whole host of new ones to play with. To be fair, I'd take an extra 1000m/s to orbit with broken drag physics and still be able to dock when I get to orbit.
No, it doesn't. Or you can just land next door and...imagine...
I think career will need quite a large patch / update to be done properly. If career is going to be more than just a lot of 'land on X planet' jobs, then there's going to need to be a lot of things implemented first. Each mission will be a loaded quicksave, could be a rocket he's built you have to get to orbit or a returnable booster he's set up to land or like I did for you guys with objects scattered around the system you needed to move and interact with based on scenarios.
Many games do have that. But those games were designed from the outset with awards and tasks in mind **cough** Kerbal Space Program **cough**.
SFS was just an open sandbox. Here's infinite resources and almost infinite space to use. Go nuts, like a kid given unlimited lego and a warehouse to store his creations. This isn't something you can tack onto the game. If you want science to be more than just 'imagination' then it'll need doing properly and embedding into the core of the game, even if its just a method of knowing how much 'science' is available in a location, how much you can get with what kit you have and how you collect it and then implement a tech tree system that is balanced.
They're not a cheat or an exploit though. How can you restrict the use of a 'vital part of the game' from being used in the method it was intended to be used?! It's not like ion engines where they're ridiculously over-powered (and even then, most challenges won't/can't ban the use). It's like banning stock landing legs and saying you must use home made ones (probably the only challenge that'd bring Danny Batten out of hiding).
And why would you campaign for the inclusion of a part that you're now suggesting be banned from the kind of challenges you wanted the damn things implemented for in the first place!?
Last edited:
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered
I disagree. Don't get me wrong, the assembly, route planning, craft creation and conception are great, but what pushes it from there to the magnum opus of challenge entries is the innovation behind using representative parts to create things they were never supposed to be. You know, using his...imagination...to create something.
Every time I see another F9, I'm reminded of Blazing Saddles. "Oh, a wed wose. How owdinawy."
That's not how it works either. That's like saying cos humans are all made of the same kinds of cells, all humans will turn out the same. Because those parts are small building blocks (cells), the random arrangement creates immense amounts of variation. As these parts become bigger though, the amount of variation decreases. You create a standardised template and I guarantee you that you'll see it more often than you see a new Falcon 9 in the downloads section.
Especially if that pre-fabricated part/sub-assembly is based upon a real unit like a STS cargo bay or Crew Dragon or the solar panel set up from the ISS.
I dunno, I think there is a large number of players who have spawned large rockets there in an effort to de-orbit the damn thing.
Much better.
You have learned much in the ways of the Waffle. You have grown strong, just as the Emperor foreseen.
I've no idea what my word count is. I'm content with the number 'lots' though ha.
NO! LEAVE THE THREAD ALONE! IT'S SUFFERED ENOUGH!
I do like these ideas though.
Every time I see another F9, I'm reminded of Blazing Saddles. "Oh, a wed wose. How owdinawy."
That's not how it works either. That's like saying cos humans are all made of the same kinds of cells, all humans will turn out the same. Because those parts are small building blocks (cells), the random arrangement creates immense amounts of variation. As these parts become bigger though, the amount of variation decreases. You create a standardised template and I guarantee you that you'll see it more often than you see a new Falcon 9 in the downloads section.
Especially if that pre-fabricated part/sub-assembly is based upon a real unit like a STS cargo bay or Crew Dragon or the solar panel set up from the ISS.
I dunno, I think there is a large number of players who have spawned large rockets there in an effort to de-orbit the damn thing.
Much better.
You have learned much in the ways of the Waffle. You have grown strong, just as the Emperor foreseen.
I've no idea what my word count is. I'm content with the number 'lots' though ha.
NO! LEAVE THE THREAD ALONE! IT'S SUFFERED ENOUGH!
I do like these ideas though.
You know what, Horus Lupercal? I'm not gonna continue this. This situation doesn't seems to be coming to an end, and I don't wanna write this insane amount of letters anymore. I'm tired, bored, and certainly got better things to do with my time.
So, I'm cutting this debate right now, but for the record, I am still 100 percent convinced of all I've said.
So, I'm cutting this debate right now, but for the record, I am still 100 percent convinced of all I've said.
Horus Lupercal
Primarch - Warmaster
Professor
Swingin' on a Star
Deja Vu
Biker Mice from Mars
ET phone home
Floater
Copycat
Registered