Jump to content

kithylin

Members
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kithylin

  1. I recently picked up a Patriot 60GB Sata-III SSD for $35 new last month, it's not too expensive to switch em to an SSD, although small one. Usually it won't void your warranty, as long as you keep your original mechanical drive somewhere in a closet, and if you need to send it in for factory warranty service, just swap the spinner drive back in and keep the SSD. That's at least what Acer said about my Acer laptop I own. If you buy that machine you may want to check with support department and get confirmation first though. Edit: Also of note, according to this CPU database here, supposedly all haswell CPU's are the definitive best at KSP performance.
  2. The second one is going to be much better of an option though. Again it's your money but if you're going to buy a laptop today, it's usually a good idea to get the newer cpu's if you can, they're better on battery life and power usage.
  3. Both would do well, one may be beter than the other. But I did a little searching on the macbook pro option #1, and I can not find specifically the model # of the processor it uses. There are quite a lot of different generations of i7 mobile now and one may be better than the other (sandy bridge, ivy bridge, haswell, etc). However, the option #2 I can tell it is indeed the latest generation haswell family cpu, so that's probably the best option all around, the haswell chips are the latest mobiles we have so far, and the best on performance and battery life. but it's your money, and the first one may just as well also be haswell, too, but I can't tell without knowing a model # of the CPU it uses. Regardless, either one is going to do fantastically at KSP. The second one is superior though in many ways. A faster video card, a real 1080p screen, double the ram, slightly faster (based on pure core speed (Mhz / Ghz) alone), based on the hardware specs.
  4. That's all I wanted to know.. thanks. I guess I don't understand it myself. I mean.. you can generate enough science points even on hard mode to max out the new talent tree with vanilla parts, and then after that there's nothing to spend points on. If this doesn't let us image the planets in a different way then.. it doesn't seem very useful to me, but.. that's just me and my opinion.
  5. So I guess unlike SCATSAN this mod does -NOT- produce any different imagery of planetary systems. Seeing as no one answered my question. It seems like this mod is just a different way to generate more science points, and nothing more what so ever.
  6. Delete your entire KSP folder, all saves and everything and re-download. Guaranteed to work.
  7. I'm a little late to the party, with the Multispectral Imaging Platform mods, can we actually get different images of the planets in KSP in different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum exported to our hard drives or something? I see images of the SATSCAN mod on the wiki, so it exports.. I was wondering if some of these other mod packs that do other imaging actually do anything useful or is it just like "gathering science points" in-game, with no real useful output of anything?
  8. You can get a 6-core 3.3 ghz i7 for that socket for about $380, they're very good chips and hold their own against most newer games, espically if you can overclock em to 4ghz (should be easy with water). A little pricey to spend on an older platform, but I had one before @ 4.6 ghz on a h110i and it was faster than the modern-day i7 chips, and it might be cheaper than buying a whole new system in your case. Chips are 970x, 980x, 990x by the way, if you go looking.
  9. I'm on low income and a little behind the tech curve.. still sitting on 2008-2009 computers with late 2010 video cards, or some older. I'm just barely now getting in to crysis-killer status machines with my big gaming computer able to run crysis on two video cards with 60 FPS @ 1080p DX-10 maxed out settings, BF3 too. I usually sit back and wait 5-6 years for the newer stuff to be dirt cheap used then upgrade. I've looked in to something to make a killer KSP computer at some point. Maybe wait for some of the cheap bottom-end basic motherboards for the new Intel chips coming out in 2015 and something like a Pentium class chip or something. Dunno yet, but it's something I've toyed with in my mind.
  10. I can save you a little trouble. I have two computers here.. both with i7-920, sort of. One runs a pair of them (xeons) the i7-920 version (2.67 ghz), and the other is my gaming machine runs a desktop i7-920 @ 4.4 ghz. Dual-xeon platform uses a superclocked gtx-260, and the gaming machine uses a pair of custom-bios overclocked +46% EVGA GTX 470 Hydro Copper cards. I see almost zero difference in performance playing KSP on either machine, almost exactly the same FPS running the same ships on either computer. So this entire platform of CPU is most likely not very good for KSP. I think the deciding end is Intel Haswell for KSP performance, so far. GPU doesn't seem to really matter either way.
  11. Yes, I know I did not address your fuel line issues. But you did mention you are opening old saves period. Which is generally a VeryBadIdea. I don't want to sound mean, but I doubt you'll get much help if you keep doing that. Generally we re-start all game progress every update, it's the price we pay with an in-development game. Besides fuel lines not working right any more, unknown countless other things were probably changed, re-written or just don't work the way they used to anymore.
  12. Most likely the reason is the old saves are no longer compatible with the new release, and not guranteed to function correctly. A lot has changed with this release, and old ships are no longer built correctly under the new changes. Generally it's best to delete all your saves and even the whole game folder and do a clean install on main upgrades. It may be annoying, but this is what we deal with, with a game that's in alpha/beta, there's going to be updates. And with each update, you start over. This is almost 90% the reason the game is crashing for most folks, they're loading old saves.
  13. Anything above 200 part count is going to start eating in to your FPS, badly. This is a long-running flaw with the game. You have several options: 1.) Build a smaller ship with less parts, 2.) Invest in a haswell-core CPU (Intel, search into it) which seem to be the best for KSP, or get a slightly faster computer in general. My machines don't drop below 60 FPS launching unless I get in the 400+ part count region.
  14. Ahh I mis-understood. I have a dedicated computer just for gaming so it runs everything fullscreen and I never alt-tab out.
  15. If you're having problems waiting on KSP to load modules.. you need to seriously look in to computer upgrades. Mainly storage I/O upgrades. You can pick up a 32GB 6 Gbps SSD on ebay for $24 used, just get one and install KSP there if you have to. I have my whole system on the gaming computer on a newish 1TB samsung pro SSD, starting KSP with a few modules and the load time is about 15 seconds from clicking start KSP to being at the main menu.
  16. I've been playing KSP for many, many years now on some pretty powerful multi-core computers. Always, and I mean always no matter what, KSP would have 1 single core/thread at 100% and the rest at 1% - 10%. It's never been multi-threaded. Sorry to burst your bubble but it hasn't. At least now it throws up 4-8 cores at 60% and uses multiple cores well. The biggest improvement I can find is the builder area/machine can now sustain 50-60 FPS trying to build and work on 800-880 part ships now (used to be 5-10 FPS) and cpu usage flies up a lot during this. However, sadly.. we get out to go flying and it still runs single-digit FPS with complex ships. So multi-threaded or not, sadly.. we still can not fly big complex ships without a huge performance penalty. It's still pretty sad that KSP severely limits us. I know "omg that's a huge ship" But.. what if we want to fly huge complex ships? Why penalize us for that? I've always hated this about KSP. I have a 4.8 ghz 6-core hyper-threaded intel system and a pair of some of the fastest DirectX-9 video cards ever made (GTX-470, +46% core overclock), and should be able to fly even 2000+ part ships if I wanted to, but the game prevents us from doing so. I know I've read the forums and I'm not alone in this either, other people try flying 500-600 part ships and find that KSP can't do it. And my other computer, a dual-processor workstation with two intel 6-cores in it @ 3.6 ghz and an Nvidia Quadro K5000 card (animation rendering and 3D rendering platform). The editor runs nicer on that machine than my big gaming i7 actually (seems it excels at more physical cores.. and ignores virtual ones) That aside.. I never learned docking or got in to space stations because I know I'd be upset.. if I got in to building stations and bringing more and more and more stuff up to add to it (think of the ISS.. they've been adding more to it every year almost), at some point it would get so complex I wouldn't even be able to select and work on the station. So.. I don't even bother. At least there's more biomes and something to do with the "simple" ships now. I do some day wish SQUAD would fix these glaring performance problems that have been plauging the game for years one of these updates though. It's a lot better, the editor is -VASTLY- improved both in performance and everything else now. We can edit and work on big ships finally without slowing down. Just we need flight performance upgraded too next, maybe v1.00 will address that after they finish fixing everything else.
  17. I think people are missing the biggest and best part of this update.. KSP IS NOW MULTI-THREADED FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER....!!!!!! Sadly.. I just tried it, and using more than 1 cpu core doesn't do a thing for improving launch and in-flight performance for complex (800+) part ships, still really poor FPS there.
  18. I was under the impression that even if unity is advanced to support multi-threading, KSP never will because they would essentially have to go back and re-write the entire game from scratch to support multi-cores and that would essentially throw away 4-5 years of work on the game's code. I don't know if it's true.. but after googling on KSP and multi-core CPU's that's the general consensus from what I've found in results, and we never have had an official response from the devs anywhere that I can see. They might have in this thread.. but I dunno if I want to go through the entire thing. I might later today. So essentially, KSP is likely doomed to be single-core for it's entire lifespan. Unless I'm wrong? If I'm right, then building a system for KSP needs no more than 1-2 cores/threads for maximum KSP performance, and any haswell chip that can accomplish that would work. And old video cards are quite cheap, We can pick up a GTX-550 for $45 - $50 today, for example.
  19. So after all of your testing. Say for example.. if one wanted to build a computer dedicated entirely to KSP performance with no other regards.. which cpu would you say is the absolute fastest? Is it mainly the Intel Haswell series? I was thinking cheap but powerful KSP performance might be grabbing that unlocked-multiplier Intel Haswell Dual Core Pentium, and just overclocking the bajeebus out of it on water cooling. So.. is it all Intel Haswell core chips are the fastest, or are the i5's actually faster than say the i7's or i3's for example? Is the video card even that big of a deal for KSP performance? I mean, at which point does a video card reach "maximum KSP performance" and then adding a newer card does not increase KSP performance any further? A single GTX-260 maybe? I know KSP can use multiple video cards.
×
×
  • Create New...