• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

About PTNLemay

  • Rank
    Not quite an engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've tried every trick I can to get KSP to stay in 1920x1080, running as administrator, disabling full screen optimization, that "Change high DPI" trick. No matter what, after a while the whole game resets to 3840x2160. The frustrating part is that the vanilla game now has an actually very good UI scaling. I set it around 170% and everything is very readable. But all of my mods stay absolutely tiny. And if anything the size difference between the two makes it even more annoying. Some mods do come with UI scaling (Kerbal Engineer Redux thankfully being one of them) but most of them seem stuck at unreadable resolutions. I tried to look up solutions, but the forums are just full of people trying to find solutions to the vanilla UI scale, which I think has since been fixed. So is there some way to force the mods to scale? I'm not afraid to go edit some ini files myself if that's what it takes.
  2. Back on Windows 7 you could go into a special setting (in the mouse settings) that basically told it "These programs will ignore the OS's scroll wheel settings and try to do their own thing" and you could tell Windows to force the proper scroll wheel sensitivity on them. I've always had to do this because I find the default wheel sensitivity is WAY too high in game. I just finished upgrading to Windows 10, and I can't find that setting anymore. Looking into it a bit, I actually found what I was looking for. It was the Microsoft Mouse and Keyboard Center. It helps reel in badly behaving programs. But while I have this thread up, I still want to ask. There must be a way in-game to set the wheel sensitivity. If so, where is it?
  3. Is this modded KSP or vanilla? I always initiate an EVA using the interface near the portraits of the kerbals (lower right).
  4. I wish I could stay with Windows 7 forever. It has been a wonderful experience. I would probably be fine... I don't download suspicious .exes or anything like that. Generally I'm quite safe in my browsing. But I'm still getting paranoid about something terrible happening. I may not like Win10, but it seems to be the way of the future. I've also recently gotten a 4K monitor, and I'm noticing the support on Win7 for this stuff is... not all that impressive. I'm hoping Win10 can do resolution scaling better.
  5. So I'm finally biting the bullet and upgrading my OS (a bit late to the party but there you have it). I have quite a few saved games I've played on Windows 7 over the years. I checked on the store and there doesn't seem to be separate installs for Win 7, Win 8, Win 10. It's all the same install regardless of what Windows you're using. So, will my saves just be compatible right out of the box?
  6. I looked it up and this problem seems to crop up since KSP 1.4 or thereabouts. Where the game will constantly go back to 3840x2160 if the computer's desktop resolution is at that resolution, no matter how many times you ask it to switch to something else. It's been brought up several times, but I can never find if a fix was ever created. I found some stuff about using compatibility mode, but mine is greyed out (possibly because my KSP install is not on my boot drive?) Is there still no proper way of fixing this? It feels like it's getting worse. I'll go into settings to fix it, go back into the game and it immediately switches back to 4K. Sometimes it will be OK for an hour, sometimes it switches back right away. Isn't there something in the Nvidia control pannel where you can tell it "Hey for this specific app, force it to only be able to load 1920x1080"?
  7. @linuxgurugamer Right. That's why, when I make a screengrab, it still sees 3840x2160. The computer continually outputs all of those pixels to meet the monitor's demand. But I was hoping that the game would be able to send it's output (at 1920x1080) to the computer, and that the computer could understand it needs to multiply every pixel by 4, and just give that to the monitor. Instead it upscales it but applies a hugely blurring effect on everything. @Brikoleur It's not so bad for stock, yeah. Because I can change the GUI and everything mostly fits. But I do like to play modded sometimes, and even at 2560x1440, the difference between stock text an modded text becomes really jarring. Also, I noticed something weird, when I set it at 2560x1440, sometimes I'll load the game back on and it will have automatically switched back to 4K. It doesn't seem to do this when I set it to 1080, but for some reason the game doesn't like staying at 1440.
  8. I just recently got a new monitor and decided to make it a 4K one. Broadly I like it, but I noticed some bugs with the GUI of some of my mods in game. Not all the text gets upscaled when you change it in settings. So I just set the game to 1920x1080 and I assumed it would just map the game's output to the monitor's exactly, 2x2 in height and width. But the actual result is... very blurry. Here the letters (I zoomed in just to be clear) end up about 18px or 20px in font size. And the blur is so bad many of the letters are blended together. I think this might be because the game or the computer is interpolating the pixels instead of mapping them directly. It's not just the monitor because when I zoom in I can see the pixels have been smooshed as they were produced by my computer. So, is there an easy way to stop it from doing this? It's frustrating when the whole point of a 4K monitor (improved crispness and better resolution) is completely undone and everything looks more blurry than before.
  9. Finally reached the rotating habitat modules in my career playthrough. They look superb. One thing that does bug me a bit is that they spin very fast. I don't plan on doing any recording any time soon, so it's just personal preference, but... all the same I prefer it when my ships have a slower, calmer vibe. Is there an easy way to tweak their rotation speed? I don't mind going into the part file to edit something if that's what it takes. My Kerbals can make do with 25% normal gravity, they don't need the full 57%.
  10. Thanks for all the info, especially Zhetaan. That's a lot of reading material, it'll take me a while to parse it. It still warps my mind quite a bit, but I think I understand it a bit better now. The bit about the train especially flummoxed me. It really does sound like the bullet is getting a gravity assist when you describe the train slowing down a tiny bit.
  11. @5thHorseman Of course I know it's me who's making an error in reasoning somewhere and the physics must be sound. I've just never been able to fully visualize what's happening in these sort of problems. And it bugs me. Or like the Oberth thing where I thought I understood, but didn't. And it's funny, whatever that discrepancy is in the original question (between what I thought and how it really is), I think it scales bigger and bigger with the further the planet you go to. So when I went to Duna I didn't notice it as much, and I so rarely go to Jool that I never really realized I was being so inefficient with my interplanetary maneuvers to it.
  12. @HebaruSan But it couldn't have come from the train. The train's speed is 500 m/s, putting that into the equation we get 125000 joules imparted onto the bullet. That's the energy we would read if we just chucked the bullet off the train without firing it from the gun. Now say we do fire the gun (while riding the train), which was designed to impart a specific 10000 joules onto the bullet. When the bullet hits the side of the road, it releases over 200 kilojoules, more than the combined energy imparted by the train and the bullet.
  13. That reminds me of another physics rule I learned, but never quite fully understood. Say you have a gun that can impart a very specific amount of energy onto a bullet. Say the bullet is 1 kg, and we impart 10000 joules of energy into it. The bullet starts at rest. By running the kinetic energy equation, we get afinal velocity of around 141 m/s. But now we are on a train that is already going at 500 m/s (let's say it's on the moon or something with no air resistance). You have that same gun, imparting that same amount of kinetic energy. If we fire it while this train is moving, I would imagine the bullet would leave the barrel of the gun travelling around 1141 m/s (relative to the side of the road). The speed of the train, plus the speed we added to it when it was at rest. But if we put those numbers in the kinetic energy equation from earlier, using final speed energy minus initial speed energy, we get an energy difference of over 80000 joules. Where did the extra energy come from? The bullet's gunpowder only had so much. I think this is the amount of energy that the bullet would release if it impacted the side of the road, but only the energy it gained from the gun, not the energy it gained from the train. I see what the equations tell us, but it doesn't sit right in my head.
  14. This is embarrassing, because I've been playing the game for years, but I realized something that I don't fully understand. I sort of get the Oberth Effect. In my mind it boils down to “maneuvers are more efficient when you perform them close to a gravity well”. But once you reach interplanetary space, you've removed the "gravity well" part. The sun is pretty far away regardless of what point you consider (around Kerbin's orbit). Whether you end up at 12 or 13 billion meters above the sun, it's all roughly the same. So I imagined there wouldn't be much difference between leaving Kerbin, then burning towards Jool. Versus leaving Kerbin while also burning towards Jool. I experimented with the maneuver node and found out it's not true at all. There is a huge difference between the two. In both cases, leaving Kerbin (from a Low circular orbit) costs around 940 m/s. But then pushing a bit more until you hit Jool costs about 1000 m/s. Whereas heading towards Jool (from simply sitting in interplanetary space at Kerbin's altitude from the sun) costs an enormous 2500 m/s. So my assumed scenario actually ends up costing 3440 m/s compared to just 1940 m/s in the optimal scenario. In this instance I would have imagined the gravitational pull from Kerbin would have counteracted the Oberth effect. Kerbin is pulling against us, preventing us from leaving. Whereas the lone satellite in interplanetary space is just chilling. But the satellite ends up at a disadvantage compared to the spacecraft that has to claw it's way out of a gravity well. Does someone have a more thorough explanation for how the oberth effect is not only applying here, but ends up producing a huge difference?
  15. @DeadJohn I do that all the time as well. I just wish there was an extra option that allowed you to test Kerbin launches with 1% gravity and also zero atmosphere. Then you could really test Gilly landers in "simulation". But yeah, it's very satisfying building enormous things and testing them on the equivalent of very low gravity worlds. It's much easier to build Millenium-Falcon-looking contraptions if you only have to land in 1 to 6% normal gravity.