• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,906 Excellent


About problemecium

  • Rank
    Kerbal Pamperer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Recent Profile Visitors

5,067 profile views
  1. ...filled with concrete. Giant geodesic dome...
  2. I'll see what I can do. Don't expect it to show up tomorrow or anything though.
  3. ^ You don't seem to have read the OP, detailing how Kerbell would prefer not to buy it through Steam. That said, I do recommend buying the Steam version. I shared your sentiments about not wanting to be tied down to a third-party platform or dealing with online authentication, updates, DRM, etc. but as it turns out KSP is presently DRM-free and will run perfectly well if you run it without Steam or even move it to a non-Steam folder or another computer. Thus for all practical purposes the Steam version is equivalent to the KSP Store version - but there's a catch! In the past SQUAD has offered beta tests of new versions exclusively to Steam users and left the non-steam party hanging for months waiting on the finished update. They didn't do that for the latest patch, but you have no reason not to hedge your bets just in case.
  4. I suppose I could, although I'd sort of abandoned this in light of the stock Vernor engine being introduced.
  5. Just make sure not to be holding Alt when you try to save? Also KSP by default should save your persistent.sfs file when you hit Alt+F4, so since you were attempting to save anyway it should usually be no big deal. I can imagine it'd be a nightmare if they had the quickload key there instead... o_O
  6. This should work on any version of KSP in which EVE works, unless Waz posts a new version that breaks old configs.
  7. Nope. "Para-Sci" is a play on "paramecium" and "science," and "EVE" is short for "EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements."
  8. I found out what the problem is (and was embarrassed about how easy it was, derp). Near the bottom of "Misc" in 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. I too would like some overall stats on the part count, full/empty mass, TWR, and delta-V.
  12. 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.