• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2766 Excellent


About cantab

  • Rank
    Flight Director
  1. is in you. The Kleenex factory...
  2. Something very simple that I've not seen: Cargo bay dividers/ends. Just flat structural pieces in Mk2 and Mk3 profile to split up or cap off the cargo bays. Something a bit more involved that I've not seen, or at least not done well: Realistic car parts. I'm thinking if you could come up with a few standard cross-sections to use and then you could have separate parts for the hood section, cabin, and trunk, something so that the player can mix parts to get various styles. There'd also be the possibility to get into coding some more realistic engine and drivetrain behaviour.
  3. Core i3-6100, 16 GB RAM, GTX 750 Ti. Doing 'normal' stuff the game was mostly fine, except that on occasion it basically locked up when it tried to project the orbits too far. Like KSP, I can bring CoaDE to its knees if I try crazy stuff, such as a salvo of a thousand missiles.
  4. As I see it EM-1 can be a mission to lunar orbit or a crewed mission. It should not be both. If the spacecraft fails while it's beyond LEO, there is no contingency and no backup. The astronauts on Apollo 13 survived because the Lunar Module provided redundant systems, something that had been considered in general if not in detail prior to the Apollo missions. Orion has none of that,
  5. Oh actually, I should have remembered earlier, I still like bragging about this thing: Even though it lagged like heck and needed fuelhack to make orbit. Now that KSP runs faster and I have a faster PC, I should break it out again and improve the launch system to fly it legit.
  6. A few versions back I built a 1/4 scale replica of the world's tallest building, the Burj Khalifa. Which made the replica 216 metres tall, twice the height of the KSP VAB. That wanted Hangar Extender to make.
  7. Which of course means that I spend half my building time fiddling with the offset and rotate gizmos ... they've been a double-edged sword for me.
  8. Most useful part for creativity? Am I allowed to say all the modular wings? Together they let me make pretty much any planform I like and it will look good. EDIT: A few of my more eccentric designs: A retrofuture rocket ship landed on an alien world: A flying saucer, of sorts: A solar-electric glider with cranked wings: A 9-winged STOVL mining plane: Something that I only gave the appellation "LOLplane":
  9. Konigsberg. Of the bridges fame.
  10. Vague guess, under 100 watts. I used to have a watt meter, but don't know where it is right now. I'll see if I can find it.
  11. An AMD R7 240 will run you about $60. It's a pretty low-end card but more than enough for Kerbal I think. For $80 the new AMD RX 550 is worth considering. VS the R7 240 it's 33% more price for double to triple the performance. Benchmarks similar to my own 750 Ti which has done great in all the games I've wanted to play. On the other hand if you're just playing Kerbal it's kind of overkill. Both those have low power requirements so unless your HP has a truly miserable power supply it should be OK.
  12. And uploaded: I connected up the Estuary Tunnel, since nobody else had. It offers a quicker route between the central towns and Bonnemotte and is reasonably well used. I also expanded Roffleworth Cove further inland. And I kept my traffic in check - 'Brunel Island' was getting clogged as a flat roundabout so I had to make it an interchange, which gave me a bit of hassle to try and make it look vaguely tolerable. Eventually all my stuff should join up in one conurbation. City population is now at its record high, although not by much.
  13. Looking at those specs, I agree the graphics is the problem. I used to play on a Phenom II X3 with 4 GB of RAM and both those were fine. A 210 is bottom-of-the-barrel though and I don't recommend it. I once had a 610 and that struggled with KSP. You are better off not upgrading the RAM and getting a graphics card that's vaguely worthwhile. What's your budget, or is it just 'as cheap as possible'?
  14. I have the save again. No, I've not forgotten this!
  15. KSP is a demanding game on the CPU and one that isn't well multithreaded. It might not look it, you might think it shouldn't be (ie you might think it's badly optimised), but it is. Simulating one complicated interconnected thing is potentially harder than simulating thousands of simple things. And while the Wii U's processor is very different to the PS4/XBone ones, I doubt it's significantly faster per-core.