He_162

Members
  • Content count

    676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

400 Excellent

About He_162

  • Rank
    First single engine jet fighter

Recent Profile Visitors

2567 profile views
  1. As for the turboprops, I'm sure someone will beat the record over and over, they will say it's not possible, and then someone will beat it. I made a 1000 ton lifter, I gave up making my 1500 ton, but, sooner or later, I kept trying... and when I did, it became possible! I believe in the same way that I will keep trying to develop a 2000 ton lifter, you guys will make mach 2 turboprops!
  2. Im loving it! Wonderful!
  3. I have put two small rockets on the ends of the wings and made it to mach 5 at 14,700m, fired them successfully, and guided them to a target at 20,000m, as well as sea level, keeping at least mach 3, and making direct hits. More wings = more drag = less speed = lower top speed Less wings = less drag = more speed = faster, better plane!
  4. It's got an airbreak, and it can drop missiles before they fire, I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't even need to have an engine to maneuver into a fighter at that speed. That would be a waste of such a nice aircraft! Of course flying at that speed it may just survive. That's not intercepting, that's racing!
  5. -=Rk=- RK-12 fighter interceptor Mach 5 Who needs to be maneuverable or stealthy when they can't even hope their missiles will gain ground on you? https://kerbalx.com/He_162/Rk12 Mach 4! (Don't go to mach 5 unless you are above 14,500m, have the radiator enabled, and have a kerbal who is less than 100% stupid. *warranty void if kerbal surpasses mach 5 whilst in the cockpit below 16,000m. *warranty void if vehicle surpasses mach 5.15 *warranty void if training wheels detonated below mach 1 or before craft leaves runway
  6. About your question on Ryzen and KSP.

    More influential is the enhancements to the SSE pipeline which is used for physics on KSP 1.2 and later.

    The DDR4 memory should also see a LOT of added performance in the GC cycles, and the cache won't hurt.   However, short of about 256MB of cache, you won't see massive improvement from the cache itself.

    Finally, I didn't want to mention this in front of the Intel fan-boys because they'd claim I was BSing (despite direct notes from the Linux kernel staff having to do the same thing) but we won't see the full performance from Ryzen cpus for about 6 months because the Operating Systems need to update their thread balancing systems to better distribute for maximum performance on desktop and maximum power saving on laptops.  This will likely give a 10-20% performance increase on desktops and an equal power saving on laptops (sacrificing some of that performance increase, of course.)

    Hopefully most motherboards will properly report the power-save data so that it runs efficiently (nothing is worse than having to run in the always-maximum "performance" mode that actually cripples the turbo feature on the CPU.)

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Ruedii

      Ruedii

      As a note, I recommend if you do over-clocking on Ryzen processors, do it from from the motherboard.  That way you keep the power-saving mode and boost function.

      I mainly prefer AMD for cost/performance ratio.  The way I see it is that if you can't get a top of the line Intel, you should go for the AMD processors.    It makes sense.  I'm not a fanboy that fails to acknowledge that Intel's top of the line models are better.  I just know the middle and economy lines are overpriced.  

      When my dad called me about my wife's laptop having found an mid-range Intel model on sale, I told him that I had specified AMD for the tier of the i5s because the AMD equivalent was cheaper when it wasn't on sale.   The slight improvement in the graphics performance wouldn't be noticeable for what my wife was using it for.

    3. Ruedii

      Ruedii

      I wasn't talking about the power-plan software.  There is only so much AMD can adjust with that.  I was talking more about how Windows distributes various programs over the various cores.

      It currently is unaware of the layout of a Ryzen system, and thus does not know the best way to distribute activity to optimally use both cache and power.

    4. He_162

      He_162

      Actually, windows knows how to do that, the scheduler isn't an issue with performance, but I can set in the bios one core to run faster than the others for a short amount of time with "P states"

      So before, with my 1200 ton lifter, I would get around 3 FPS

      Now I am getting lets say, 13 - 15 FPS.

       

      That's a 5x improvement in FPS because of ram speed, onboard cache amounts, etc.

  7. I would like to know if the 16mb of cache on a Ryzen CPU (which is shared, so all 16mb can be used with a single core if need be) will improve frames on KSP over say a equal IPC intel processor. Basically, will the extra onboard cache improve performance of KSP, or will it not matter?
  8. I built a new lifter capable of taking 1500 tons to orbit, it's 857 parts, so it's got less parts, and higher cargo to orbit than my previous mega lifters. https://kerbalx.com/He_162/He1500-ton-lifter
  9. Based on a similar architecturally speaking standpoint, I have developed a very inefficient 1500 ton lifter, but I guess efficiency isn't the point of these, these just take your huge random cargo to orbit in a single launch. I present the He1500 ton lifter! https://kerbalx.com/He_162/He1500-ton-lifter These designs are work in progresses, I am essentially developing 2 stage to orbit lifters to take eventually, 2000 tons to orbit, and I am almost there, I simply have to take what I've learned from these, and put them towards developing a stronger more structurally stable rocket, which is what I have done. (Part count is now a more respectable 857 parts, thanks to what I learned from that last 1200 ton lifter (1510 parts) That thing was a beast.) Keep checking back for my next, hopefully a new architectural design than the cylindrical cone shaped one I have now, I want to make it more like a simple cylinder, whilst being aerodynamic at the top. (Possibly 1750 tons to orbit?) All craft from now on will use at LEAST 4550 deltaV, the 1500 ton lifter has around 4660.
  10. I forgot to mention it's encroaching launchpad weights of 10,000 tons. (9579.98 tons on the pad)
  11. I present, the long overdue He1200 ton lifter! Using just 1059 parts in the actual rocket, and 1510 parts in the launch structure combined, it takes up to 1250 tons to an 80km orbit. (1300 tons to a 70km orbit if you are lucky). Stats: Weight: Height: Width: (Vectors) Engine count: ------ https://kerbalx.com/He_162/He1200-ton-lifter The largest lifter I have made to date, the launchpad part count is 1510, but the actual rocket has 1094 parts, making it smaller in part count than my previous 1000 ton lifter, whilst taking 250 more tons to orbit, as this thing can actually take 1250 or up to 1300 tons to orbit, albeit if you are lucky enough and efficient enough in your ascent.+This rocket has taken quite a long time to build, so please, bear with me. It is quite hard to build things at 3 - 4 FPS, and harder still to make it not explode on the launchpad, and even harder when it constantly crashes your game. I will make a post with it, and my other huge lifters eventually when I have more than 1 - 2 of them.
  12. I havn't really uploaded anything in a long while, except for a couple really quickly put together and hardly "quality" jets, I would like to know if anyone would like to see a 2000 ton lifter, or a more efficient 1000 ton lifter? I would like to get back into KSP and develop something new on Sunday, not sure what I'll make, let me know if you guys think it would be cool for me to do something like the above. Oh, and as for a WIP build, this thing crashes my PC every time I load it into the hangar, so I cannot work on it any longer, but it needs 3x the amount of engines it currently has and about 2.4x the fuel to take all 300,000 tons of cargo it has to orbit, I doubt any machine could load this beast. (All fuel tanks shown except those the engines are attached to are the cargo)
  13. It wasn't based on the F-15, I just built until I came up with an airframe that performed better than my previous one, and put some engines and placed fuel in specific places to shift the weight around. Let me know if you'd like a F-15 replica, because I see very few similarities to the F-15 in this.
  14. My lifter can take 1000 tons of cargo to low kerbin orbit (70,000m, or barely higher, it requires a good pilot.) https://kerbalx.com/He_162/He969-MJ
  15. Upload them to imgur, and then open the image into a new tab, take the URL, and post the URL into the thread. Gallery photo's are broken at the moment, so single photos is the only way at the moment.