Wild Cobra
-
Posts
176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Wild Cobra
-
-
On 5/1/2016 at 10:11 PM, Bigbootie said:
Additional boat pics. Had her up to 48 m/s with no issues.
I've had this one somewhere between 155 and 160 m/sec, going NE after starting in the ocean at the end of the runway:
Went to that far away island:
Made some distance, didn't I!
-
38 minutes ago, Bigbootie said:
What's holding your 4 main rockets together? Only struts? Hard to tell from the photos. How did you get them symmetrical?
The fuel tanks will surface mount to each other. The Docking Port Sr. holds the fuel tank to the passenger sections. Then yes, struts for strength and stability that the docking ports don't give.
This thing is a real pain to build, and I have poor balancing which affects my docking when I move tanks rockets around. My fourth lainch, I gave the tanks the ability to remote control. I think I'll strap them together, only keep a few with most the fuels transferred, and crash the rest in the Mun.
I am this far, with four launches:
-
Have my first two sections of a larger Mun base:
-
Well, I decided to launch another monster. This is the same Mun Lander I used for the Mun Rocked Challenge, but I fixed my solar panel alignments. Same 1,395 parts after the non-permanent rockets are shed.
I plan to send it to an out planet mun. Haven't decided which though. Ideas anyone?
-
Well, I built a really fast rover-boat:
-
I balanced the design by effectively mirroring the front and rear. I then went the normal direction of the runway. Had a really nice distance, but in all fairness, I don't think angled thrust that negates gravity or lifts the vehicle should be allowed. My entry should be disqualified.
Anyway, since it floats in the water, I did infinite fuel, and jetted on out to the island, and up the shore I went!
-
OK, here is my submission.
I tried again filling the 2nd tank full instead of 30% to 40%, but it crashed every time on the runway. Too much weight of too far off balance. I originally put the second tank, empty cargo bay, and size 1 structural just for balancing my weight over the small fuel tank.
-
4 hours ago, Anbang11 said:
By using VTOL someone could literally beat everyone.
Manned or Unmanned?
I would use a pilot so you can plant a flag at the jump point.
-
I don't know if my rover will count or not as I put my rocket assists at about a 45 degree angle. I used MK2 parts including the cargo bay which has wheels to keep it stable and nuke power units. I used several spider engines, and only had fuel in 1 of two fuel tanks for my trial run. I hit over 650 meters in height, stating at 70 meters. I went about 7.2 km. I think I'll put some fuel in the second tank, but I only used the empty tank for balance so my CG was on the other tank. I have no time now, but will try again later. the only think I broke was the wheels before the end of the ramp, and they were going too fast.
-
4 hours ago, GoldForest said:
Your not bursting my bubble. I know the 5820k Is only 6 cores. I was just saying that I hope they implement 16 core support as I may upgrade to 5960x. Actually, I hope they implement 20 core support. That 6960x sure sounds good.
What's funny, is when the LGA 2011 first came out, I was asking opinions as to get one or not. Even from people of a tech nature, they said only if you're using it for a server. Now it's the new gaming standard. I was looking at it from the standpoint of the quad channel memory bus. Memory access speeds has been, and probably always will by the limiting factor of a system.
-
1 hour ago, GoldForest said:
I hope Squad implements 16 core support so I can use all cores on my 5820k
Hate to burst your bubble, but the i7-5820K is a 6/12 core processor and has a single thread rating by Passmark of 2006. My puny i7-4790 with it's 4/8 cores has a single thread rating of 2291. The K version is at 2530.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-5820K+%40+3.30GHz&id=2340
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790+%40+3.60GHz&id=2226
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4790K+%40+4.00GHz&id=2275
-
Just now, godefroi said:
That's possible, but I'd be somewhat surprised if the slowdown was noticeable.
It's not noticeable unless you measure it.
Try it with yours. Build a 500 part + craft, and use SRB's Take a stopwatch and time the same craft how long it takes the SRB to be exhausted with HT on and off. Use the largest one, as it takes over a minute of game time to be exhausted.
When you have craft severely lagging, every bit of time helps.
-
1 minute ago, godefroi said:
Synthetic does not mean wrong. Benchmarking one game and seeing an improvement does not mean that other games will or will not see an improvement. Also, there's no such thing as "hyperthread" support, where software is concerned. It's a hardware trick that makes a single core look like two cores (but not necessarily perform like two cores, depending on the particular load).
I suspect that the logical core supports gets in the way and slows things down when a process wants 100% of a core.
-
On 3/8/2016 at 8:46 PM, GoldForest said:
If KSP is getting HT support, or better HT support, I would recommend keeping HT on, even if the physics load stays single core non HTed load, as the other tasks KSP runs will use that HT performance.Well, I have launched craft in both modes. Maybe it doesn't matter normally until you are using the one important core at 100%. Maybe it also depends on the CPU. I can time a difference. I was told that at best, I might see a 2% performance gain. I see more though, so I suggest it is probably CPU dependent.
-
On 3/8/2016 at 8:46 PM, GoldForest said:
There's actually no real world performance gain or loss with turning hyperthreading off.
Then how do you explain my benchmark testing showing improvement?
-
5 hours ago, Nich said:
WOW I must be doing something wrong My 250 part base is lagging to the point of INOP
It's probably your processor and/or RAM. Since the engine only uses one core, I have an advantage over most. My i7-4790 is the 7th fastest CPU out there for single thread speeds. It's a 3.6 ghz processor. I also have 32 GB, so file swapping to the HD is probably at a minimum. The fastest is the i7-4790K, which is clocked at 4.0 ghz.
Yes, my system lags. I've made craft up to around 2,600 parts before I couldn't do anything with it. However, 250 parts isn't bad for my system. I don't remember if I get a small lag, or if it's real-time, but I don't really notice it.
-
I'm not sure where my pic is for this craft with over 2,000 parts:
I hope that 1.1 deals with large part counts better. Maybe using 64 bits and more memory will help if nothing else. These large craft can take some time, and stress on one core it uses in my 17-4790.
This only had 1971 parts on takeoff, took three refueling missions while in Kerbal orbit, then another two refueling missions in Munar orbit. Landed on the Mun with 1395 parts.
The tankers:
Yes, the takers were flown up. Not hyper-whatever. All parts are stock.
Now for the Mun Landing:
-
12 hours ago, GoldForest said:
I've heard that ksp will still use one core for physics loading(which causes most lag), but other tasks will most likely be multicore.
Well then only the 64 bit addressing will do me any good. That 3.5 GB limit is hit at about 2,300 to 2,600 parts, depending on parts and edits.
I have 32 GB of memory!
I have the GT 720 graphics card in my system which is is capable of handling this game no sweat. I have the GTX 950M in my laptop. It could probably handle 10 times what this game gives it or more. My laptop also does almost as good as my tower with it's i7-4720HQ and 16 GB.
-
Well, my system is sporting the i7-4790, which according to PassMark, is the 7th fasted processor for single core speeds. The fastest is the i7-4790K. Once I go over maybe 400 parts, I max out the one core being used for the critical part of the game. The utility Passmark allows you to download and benchmark with shows I have about a 7% gain if I turn off hyperthreading in the BIOS. A 14.75% increase in physics.
Passmark Test HT ON HT OFF Percent CPU Mark 7956 8504 106.89% CPU - Integer Math 10065 10123 100.58% CPU - Floating Point Math 8096 9044 111.71% CPU - Prime Numbers 37.6 45.3 120.48% CPU - Extended Instructions (SSE) 27.9 29.1 104.30% CPU - Compression 9268 9823 105.99% CPU - Encryption 1441 1520 105.48% CPU - Physics 522 599 114.75% CPU - Sorting 5783 6250 108.08% CPU - Single Threaded 2331 2380 102.10% -
21 hours ago, GoldForest said:
Since 1.1 is getting unbroken(*crosses fingers*/*Knocks on wood*) 64-bit version of KSP, how many mods will you be running since the 3.5 GBs will be passable?
I won't run any more mods than I already do. I just hope it will use the full capabilities of the processor, instead of most of the program only operating in one core.
-
On 2/7/2016 at 7:16 AM, DragonRage said:
For hard mode you need solid fuel for the WHOLE launch. orbit and launch. But you have to have liquid fuel for interplanetary exploration. Once the ship gets into orbit it needs to be able to go somewhere. that you can use LFO for.
Have you ever put something in orbit with only boosters? The insane part is they will stay in orbit as unwanted debris.
-
33 minutes ago, Matuchkin said:
@Whackjob! I summon thee to arise from the depths and confines of tartarus, and to teach this young lad a lesson in how true rockets are made!
I normally wouldn't use only SRB's for the first stage, but it was part of the "hard" part of this challenge:
-
I like doing things large:
-
In four attempts, I wasn't able to get the Orion to orbit. I keep running out of fuel. Then I looked under the faring and wow... have you tried reentry to verify the Kerbals survive?
Small Plane, Big Engine!
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
OMG...
I would be afraid of the cockpit being swallowed by the engine!