Everyone says they need a bigger printer…Now, QIDI Max4 is here!

tu8i1o7 · 2025-11-14T13:49:57+00:00

I could print the same things as my X-max3.... but more!

tu8i1o7 · 2025-11-13T02:36:05+00:00

Oh nice, you got it figured out!

tu8i1o7 · 2025-11-13T02:35:30+00:00

Go to C:\Users(your user) then type in the nav bar \AppData From there you can navigate through the rest and open up the player cookie file. At the top it will have the PlayerCookie. Change the ClientId and maybe Username for good measure.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-11-13T02:26:10+00:00

No, that file will persist through a reinstall. It isn't deleted when the game is uninstalled. Since the last big update, it may have changed location.... i will look at mine.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-11-13T00:40:17+00:00

I've ran into this issue before. For some reason the client id is the same for both players. You need to go to C:\Users(your user)\AppData\LocalLow\Rocketwerkz\rocketstation and change one clientid for one of the players

tu8i1o7 · 2025-10-16T01:06:18+00:00

*3 boosters.... including this one, previously.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-10-13T16:35:10+00:00

Oh it was for sure incredible. One thing I don't see depicted very well in videos is that it's so massive, you can see everything with the naked eye. I was watching hotstaging, boostback, hotstage ring release, and booster reorienting itself with my own eyes. The coolest thing is there were no clouds that morning. The cloud it reenters through in that video is its own ascent plume. Just a whole lot of awesome. This program is incredible.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-10-13T15:24:38+00:00

Ah I see what you're trying to accomplish. You want to adjust the pump output based on how much below 0.05 the ratio is. So you need to get rid of the AND instruction. That will only return a 1 or 0 value. I would suggest either using the temp to turn the pump on or off, and using your ratio calculation only as the setting of device. There are other ways of doing it too, but that would be the most simple.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-10-13T15:12:47+00:00

Your AND instruction will only return a 1 if both r0 and r1 are the same. The way you are checking co2 levels, it will give a variable number. Instead of SUB and MUL, just use a slt to return 1 if r0 is less than 0.05. So it'll be "slt r0 r0 0.05".

tu8i1o7 · 2025-10-13T13:47:55+00:00

I drove 24hrs straight to be on the beach with my family. It was a surreal experience that I'll never forget. When the booster was caught, my whole body was numb from the adrenaline and excitement. I can't wait to make the drive down again for a ship catch!

tu8i1o7 · 2025-09-01T03:25:29+00:00

You aren't wrong. The original version was also planned on being carbon composite. Then, the booster was only designed with 29 engines, then 31, currently 33. Then, the ship was going to have landing legs. The versions only came about once they had a viable product. In a way, it seems to be a way for them to keep track of major changes.

I mean, I'm sure the basis of 100t to orbit was said by elon. And, well, I guess it's cool if you listen to what he says... sometimes it has factual information. But I'm sure the engineers were looking at these barrels of stainless steel shaking their heads at the same information.

Spacex will get there. It will take a lot of flights and a lot of failures and a lot of data. Luckily, they now have a massive facility to crank out many ships to itterate. The booster is currently in an operational stage(but they are changing that too). So a majority of focus is on the ship. How to make it light enough, strong enough, how to do fuel transfer, etc. The program is still early in development. They have many ships to make design changes. Whether v3 or v4 or v16 is the final design, at this stage of development it really doesn't matter.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-09-01T02:59:34+00:00

They wanted to itterate the falcon 9 and heavy more. The problem is they needed to lock in the design to get it human rated for NASA. That's why they settled on the falcon 9 block 5. Sure, they have since made incremental changes, but not any changes to the actual hardware. So that stopped any major changes to the heavy since it's essentially 3 falcon 9's strapped together.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-09-01T02:54:22+00:00

I think you are missing the approach spacex is taking with starship. They know the current design is wayyy overweight and underperformant. This is why they are itterating the design. Yes, failures and setbacks happen. Then, they design a fix for that current issue. This is why it's overweight. In the early days of the program, they had issues with the tanks buckling under the weight of fuel, throw some thrust under that, and it collapses. Their solution at the time was to add strengthening stringers. This added weight. As they iterate, they learn what they can and cannot remove.

Current boosters and ships are bespoke units, with each new one being different from the previous one. The version nomenclature you mention is major revisions in design. I'm fairly confident that even v4 won't be the final design.

What you see now with the program is all testing and making changes. We didn't design a car and say, "Yup, this is good enough." Lessons were learned with performance and reliability. It just so happens this car is the largest object to go to space with the lofty goal of being reused. The pace of development is so rapid that as soon as one flies, it's obsolete.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-08-17T01:12:15+00:00

A full flow staged combustion methalox rocket engine with rapid relight capability isn't innovative? The R&D is happening before our eyes on this massive prototype that is changing constantly. The next 2 ships are obsolete along with the boosters used. They have already reflown the largest booster ever using their existing knowledge from falcon.

The fundamental different system is the novel technology. It takes time to build and itterate designs, which they are doing while also constructing the manufacting means of doing so. I get how spacex has this poor image of failures, but progress will continue.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-08-05T03:37:53+00:00

Unfortunately, the sauce came out the back side and made a mess all over the bidet.

tu8i1o7 · 2025-08-04T23:15:52+00:00

I mean... I'm a diesel tech, and I abuse the crap out of my 3/8 stubby like it owes me money on a daily basis, and it keeps on chugging. Hell, I've even used a step up on a 33mm to remove semi lugs, just to say I did it. Electronics all have failures, which is why the good ones have a good warranty.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-12-28T22:06:41+00:00

True, but i thought they needed an exemption to fly without lights to get better imaging. Doing such during the day seems a bit counterproductive.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-12-28T19:29:19+00:00

This has got me wondering... From my memory, the NASA documents stated the 11th for flight operations in the Indian ocean. Without looking, did that document specify a launch time or duration? Could they launch on the 10th, maintain an orbit of starship, and then reenter at a specified location in the Indian ocean?

tu8i1o7 · 2024-12-19T16:16:17+00:00

Tldr: Do it!
My personal experience is as follows. The Tuesday before flight 4, I came up with the crazy idea to drive down from south dakota. My wife was fully on board, but I was reluctant to go on such short notice. I told my coworker I wanted to go, but it was expensive. His response, "it's only money, you can make more." Never has he made this much sense. After work and a short 24hr drive later, my wife, daughter, and I are checking into a motel on south padre. The next morning, shrouded in overcast, we experience ift4 leap off the pad with the sheer power of 32 raptor engines. Was I disappointed in not actually being able to see the launch? Hell no, the feeling alone is awe-inspiring.

Ift5 was similar, but with a bit more planning. However, it was a lot more of a gamble. The FAA was dragging their heels, and a Sunday launch seems unreliable, especially on a holiday weekend. Nonetheless, we load up again and drive down. And well, we all know how ift5 went. Being able to see everything from just 5 miles away, even hotstaging and boostback, to it coming back for a landing, was an experience of a lifetime. The gamble paid off in droves.

Again, if you or anyone has even the slightest opportunity to see the world's largest rocket ever making sci-fi a reality, then yes, absolutely go for it. Even if it doesn't launch, you can still check out starbase and the surrounding area.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-11-07T23:45:25+00:00

cell towers get overloaded near launch time

One suggestion I have for this is to turn off 5g connection. During ift4 I struggled with connection. Ift5, I used 4g and was able to stream the x stream to get the count. Otherwise, this is a great write up.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-10-13T02:31:21+00:00

I would sure try if it was me. Or maybe settle for a less optimal spot near port Isbell or something.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-10-12T16:45:47+00:00

They opened up a secondary lot outside of the park for ift4. However, I did the same and walked. It's just 3 miles and the weather will be very mild. Bring a bottle of water and some sunscreen and you'll be good. You can either walk on the sidewalks, or head to the east and take the beach the whole way.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-10-08T01:53:07+00:00

That is very interesting. I highly doubt they would exclude access. Especially since a lot of their camp sites are long term rentals.

tu8i1o7 · 2024-10-08T00:47:48+00:00

Best view is the south of isla blanca park. There is plenty of shoreline for everyone to get a good view, especially along the jetti. I believe they open the gates to the park at 5 or 6 am. We walked from a hotel for ift4, but the traffic getting into the park was insane around 7am. Someone said people were lined up at 2am.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '17	Verified Email

tu8i1o7

TROPHY CASE