swjr-swis

Members
  • Content count

    1211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1162 Excellent

3 Followers

About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/156316-swjr-swis

Recent Profile Visitors

4134 profile views
  1. It's been reported already (http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/14467), but you can confirm it.
  2. What means this word 'enough'? We at KSC not hear of this word...
  3. Nothing? A single Linear RCS Port offset to the very nose of the Mk1 or Mk2 cockpits are all you need to protect them from overheating. They 'detach' the shockwave from your cockpit so it soaks up a whole lot less heat at reentry.
  4. Agreed on almost all points. Still would've used 6x fuel cell in symmetry around that Oscar-B though, despite the 1/5th extra mass. And the array makes for a nice mini-rover body.
  5. [Forum keeps destroying this URL, so you'll just have to type it in by hand. Go to google, search for "ápside definición"] Start going down the list of different dictionaries and tell them all how wrong they are...
  6. I know I'm not in any kind of majority on this, this is a very personal opinion: I'm not a raving fan of Ven's Stock Revamp. I played with it for a while in a single career game... and to this day that's been the only career I used it in. I was not a fan of the overall look, I kept having difficulty with quickly identifying the parts while building, and I didn't like some changes that in my opinion went beyond a 'simple' visual restyling. No offense to the author, as it is clearly obvious a lot of effort was put into the pack. I liked some of the ideas worked into it, just not the overall effect.
  7. For mindless fun, tests, proofs of concept: minutes, usually. Which proves I can work fast if I need to (thousands of hours of experience counts for something). For 'final' (*) versions of 'serious' (**) projects: hours and days and weeks and months, over many many, many iterations. A cycle often restarted when a new version of KSP arrives. *: final is incredibly relative in my case; I seem to be almost incapable of not 'tweaking'. Almost every time I reload an existing craft, I get stuck in the VAB or SPH for far longer than I intended, succumbing to further tweaking that started under the pretense of 'quick checking how I configured this last time' instead of launching after crewing the ship. I spend way more time editing than flying. I fully expect one day to roll out my last (tweaked) creation to the pad or runway, and find the Kerbin landscape completely transformed due to the natural evolution of the home star... **: serious between serious quotes... I've spent more time on unlikely contraptions than on realistically designed spacecraft. It's a weakness.
  8. I read the thread title and the user name, and I had to race into here to see how in space someone had managed to get KSP running on a C-128. I am disappoint now! If you can already run the demo, you should be able to run the full version too. You don't mention your CPU, but otherwise you exceed the minimum specs for the full version. Technically there's not much difference: they only ask for more VRAM, RAM and storage space since there are more parts to store and load in the full version. KSP is CPU-bound, not GPU. Your 'onboard graphics' is basically a full-fledged graphics card with dedicated VRAM which just happens to come pre-soldered... AMD prerrogative to use their own GPUs for their motherboards. To compare: I have a Win 8.1 laptop with an Intel i7-4800 CPU, Intel HD4600 'actual' integrated graphics using shared memory, and 8GB, that ran KSP fine (*)... the FPS slowed down at around 150-200 part ships or when aerodynamic effects were being rendered on high detail levels (Mach/reentry effects), and I never tried it with more than a handful of mods (which can gobble up RAM rapidly), but it was quite playable. I didn't notice much difference between the demo or the full version other than the initial loading time. Your mileage may vary, as they say, but since your graphics specs far exceed the specs of that laptop, I expect it should work fine for you. (*full disclosure: I haven't run KSP 1.2x on that yet - but performance-wise 1.2 was an improvement, and I think the demo is based on a pre-1.2 version, so I can only assume it works better)
  9. That thread is from 2010, about Unity 2.6. A comment in the thread references a newer thread from 2012, which is still ancient. Not to say the suggestions in those threads are useless, but I think we need to look much more recently than that. The severe quivering of shadow edges this thread talks about is something that appeared out of nowhere when they did the last Unity engine upgrade in KSP, from 4.x to 5.
  10. Thanks for the explanation. Btw, I assume you mean the opposite: that the resource name in the tooltip is not abbreviated? Otherwise there'd be little point to the tooltip.
  11. All resources show abbreviated in some places, not just EC.
  12. Buttons under the gizmo buttons (top left of the editor) showing in text the modes and allowing to toggle by clicking them. Part Action Window. The little floating windows you get when right-clicking a part. (Ugh. I load the thread, and that was the last post, I reaload after replying.. and the forum decides to show two later posts, one from 29 minutes ago.)
  13. Probably doesn't help that there's people out there who choose to believe NASA is faking moon landings and hiding alien technology from us... (yes, at the same time)
  14. Todos presumimos de lo que nos ha dado satisfacción de crear y pilotar. Me veo a menudo en dos extremos: pasando horas y horas perfeccionando mi última nave multifuncional de 600+ piezas... para un día despues estar más contento que un chiquillo con un rover de 15 piezas con el que saltar por las colinas detrás del centro espacial (cuando el plan original era de comprobar si 1.2.9 realmente ha solucionado el problema con las grietas en la superficie ). Todo vale, y eso es lo bueno de KSP.
  15. I think we're making history alright: after 23 hours, not a single thread has been merged yet into the grand discussion thread. Why is no one talking? The debates, where are the debates? (either that, or the moderators are taking an extra nap in preparation of the weekend chaos... )