SyberSmoke

I have Tourism and Field Research Directories for the Contract Packs. As I think on it...it has been a while since I played and some of these mods may be old. I mean if updating the mission packs would solve the issue I can try that. Edit: OK, updated and the issue exists still. : `(

So....I have run into an issue and am trying to track down why. So I have MOAR Station Science as well as Contract Configurator and Contract Packs. I took a mission to do "Experiment: Seed Growth" in orbit. So was like "OK, can do that...well...wait...no Experiment: Seed Growth". Tried Plant Growth but no joy. SO...any thoughts? I would rather like to do these missions and not loose vast amounts of cash for taking them.

Looks good. May I just suggest that the latest and greatest plans for the mod be on the OP? I man just so that silliness (like my own) could be mitigated some. Heck could be a hidden post much like the change log, but with "Things for the Near Future" or something. Keep it up by the way.

Shame for me it is not that easy. I have three kids I take care of and frankly, just not enough time to go rummaging through a 31 page thread.

I have been wondering. Any plans to add a longer term science experiment akin to Station Sciences experiments? I ask because we go to a place, we set up the stuff. We use the stuff...then...that is it. And really with all this monitoring gear set in place...it strikes me as a opportunity to have short term experiments granting a low science. Then have a long term experiment that takes a day or two, is worth a lot of science, and is designed to keep the kerbals at the site for a while. A second thought could be that every so often, to a maximum, the control station could radio back science experiments connected to it. So that setting them up and leaving them there could generate say a couple science per week up to a maximum giving the player a passive science income. Thoughts?

Well I certainly hope that Squad have something to say about this. I looked through the threads and it explains a lot in the past as I played. But there really isn't anything, not even the loading of all the parts, that should cause such a dramatic rise in CPU usage. So yeah, Squad people...come on...our CPU's need to know what is happening.

Recently I started to play KSP again and with 1.1 I modded it with my beloved collection of additions. As usual in the VAB things get a little sluggish but then in the world, all is good. Thanks to my Keyboard (A G15 running LCDSirReal) I say that in the VAB and Plane hanger my CPU usage would jump from 50% on all four cores to 95% or more. Outside of the VAB when flying the ship, my CPU usage remains around 50% on all four cores of my CPU. I fealth this was odd because there should be little simulation going on in the VAB. Nothing that would require such quantities of CPU power at least. Interestingly the same things happens in KSP with no mods also. The game will run at about 25% give or take. But in the VAB the CPU usage doubles. So I do not know if this is a bug or just a unavoidable thing. But as mods are added...having their CPU usage double while making a ship is a little odd. Tested with KSP 64bit with and without mods. All mods are up to date or they are not in my install. All mods have been installed properly. And the obligatory DxDiag: http://pastebin.com/n3ZiT9JP Note: I have updated my drivers and gotten the latest bios to boot, CPU usage is the game for both modified and unmodded.

True enough, but with a broad enough body of people stating their experiences, you can get a solid idea of what to expect out of it. It is better then assuming since you will have polled people with different rigs and software and can get a solid idea. It is far better then just randomly guessing or assuming that something will work without any knowledge beforehand. Essentially defining a base of expectation for what your doing instead of just blindly running in. It is kind of why online stores have ratings and reviews. Your experience may vary, but you can get an idea of what to and not to expect.

I just try to avoid assumptions at every turn, they are bad if you're trying to solve problems and your assumption is wrong. :-D

64bit just refers to the amount of memory a given program can address. A 64bit OS can run both 32 and 64 bit applications. So you're fine, play the game.

So, with today's grand update I was curious and took a look in the folder and saw the reinstatement of the sixty four bit executable. So I am curious if people have given it a go and how stable it is. I know the last outing into 64bit was pulled...so I am curious about what people find out.

Devnote speaks to us Kerbals and rockets fly high Then explosions come...

I liked the idea about crash tolerance upgrades for parts. Landing legs do look to be the obvious choice. But really any increase in structure (crash tolerance) would also have an increase in dry mass. So that could be the catch. If you want to add a few extra m/s tolerance to a tank or engine or anything (beyond legs) then you should also have to take a hit to the object's mass. This way it is a little more balanced. Then people will have to pay to bring the mass back down and balance out their rockets. Second, if this were put in, then it may also be a good thought to add the crash tolerance as a tweakable. That way the player can tweak the tolerance and mass increase. So if I do not need the tank to be crash resistant, I can leave it off and save weight. But if I need it to survive an impact, well I can put it on and need to plan ahead.

Thanks, early game reentry is a pain when you have to carry passengers and your ship can only re-enter tail first.

This got my attention, I have not looked but will you be making some conformable shields for 1.25m tubes?