problemecium

Members
  • Content count

    2999
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1857 Excellent

3 Followers

About problemecium

  • Rank
    Kerbal Pamperer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://helia.heliohost.org

Recent Profile Visitors

3183 profile views
  1. Oh no! Not... that one! https://youtu.be/r4xxym2tyEM?t=146
  2. Nope. "Para-Sci" is a play on "paramecium" and "science," and "EVE" is short for "EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements."
  3. I found out what the problem is (and was embarrassed about how easy it was, derp). Near the bottom of "Misc" in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/157804-modders-notes-for-129/ is a note about how the KeyBinding fields were renamed. I'd implement a hotfix and recompile it myself but I'm running out of hard drive space xP
  4. Soon™
  5. There is indeed an aerodynamic penalty for using any module in a stack with a different cross section, although with Mk3 and Size 3 parts it's rather small. It's a valid argument that perhaps the Hitchhiker container needs a higher capacity, but currently it's the only inline Size 2 part with crew capacity. Using a Mk2 cabin in a Size 2 stack has a rather large aerodynamic penalty. Also the Hitchhiker container is much comfier inside, so if you don't want your Kerbals to get space madness it's better for long missions
  6. This is looking very nice! Although I confess to being among those who opened the thread and was disappointed that you hadn't ported in the Avalon from "Passengers." xD
  7. I too would like some overall stats on the part count, full/empty mass, TWR, and delta-V.
  8. I sure hope I didn't miss somewhere that this got suggested already, as usual, because as soon as I thought of this it seemed like an obvious thing for someone to have suggested. ANYWAY. Software like the Unity Engine and Minecraft have "profilers" or "debug screens" which show nifty graphs of what the game is doing every frame so that users can diagnose where the lag is coming from: In Minecraft's case there is a nice pie graph on the side with sectors illustrating how much of each frame is being used on lighting, rendering, terrain generation, etc. In the Unity Engine's case there is a very snazzy stacked line graph and a clickable list of which tasks are occupying the most processing power. Long story short I want SQUAD to add something akin to one or both of these to KSP. I'd ask a modder to do it, but the low-level nature of a profiler screen makes it the kind of thing that the original developers would have a much easier time implementing, assuming it's even possible for a modder to do it at all. It doesn't need to be quite as fancy as Unity's, but I feel like a few profiler features would be very useful, e.g.: - How many milliseconds per frame are being spent on aero and thermal FX - How many milliseconds are being spent on part physics and traversing the vessel part tree - How many milliseconds are spent waiting for the GPU to render pretty pixels. This would help out a lot of people who can't tell whether their game is truly CPU- or GPU-bound and find the optimal balance of rendering quality, physics fidelity, and vessel complexity (can I REALLY handle an EVE or Scatterer installation?), and with any luck help cut down on the number of threads going "I have a [crap processor] and a [pwntastic GPU] and [large amount] of RAM, why is KSP unplayable?" If some L33t pr0 modder thinks s/he can handle this, by all means go ahead, but I suspect it's a task better suited to those in possession of the KSP source code and scene files.
  9. I agree that the stock game needs this kind of thing. Landing our ultra-mega-super-huge ITS and F9R replicas is quite difficult when we have to land on the engine bells and make do with itty-bitty airbrakes that for some reason can only handle 1200K when opened :\
  10. *brother and sister FTFY ;P And indeed, it's only possible via inkest, which is a no-no.
  11. Nothing on you personally, but you should know that "this would make KSP better and cooler" and "because we'd have whatever it is I just suggested" are about the worst possible reasons to use to convince people to implement your suggestion. What specifically is better about a KSP with your idea than KSP as it is? Does it, for example, make it more immersive? Does it make it more educational? Think about why SQUAD would want to put all that work in.
  12. As of prerelease build 1773, KAC generates log spam reading: Exception: Field "KeyBinding.primary" not found. Just a heads-up to minimize trouble when 1.3 comes around for real. I've noticed other mods doing the same thing and I expect it's because the localization changes involved renaming "KeyBinding.primary" to something else. EDIT: I found out what the problem is (and was embarrassed about how easy it was, derp). Near the bottom of "Misc" in http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/157804-modders-notes-for-129/ is a note about how the KeyBinding fields were renamed. I'd implement a hotfix and recompile it myself but I'm running out of hard drive space xP
  13. Suffice it to say that KSP hasn't gone well for me so far today.
  14. Five months away from the forum and of course I come back in the middle of a cliffhanger xP
  15. I caught that mistake myself a few seconds after posting, but alas, I can't manage to find any way to delete reports :\ It is true that this bug is present in 1.2.2 at least ^^;