jfx

It's not the retina alone. Long time astronauts on Mir and ISS have higher incidence for Cataracts. As for radiation: Six Months on the ISS equal about 20 Years of the average yearly dose on the ground. Prolonged stays in low gravity also change the shape of your eyeballs.

When discussing this topic there are two important things to consider: 1) You are not smarter or more informed than your OS' scheduler and therefore are not better at deciding which process should run where. 2) "Turboboost" does not "shut down" (from the OS' perspective) cores, and makes its decision on when to run one or more cores above the default frequency on a whole number of metrics it measures itself (temperature, current, operations computed et cetera). The number your OS displays to you is only a gross estimate of the actual workload on the cpu (and so are the graphs displaying the workload of each core). In the latest CPUs cores are even put to sleep without the OS noticing it ("Active Idle") interrupts are rerouted to a still running core. You can find a more comprehensive explanation from an intel engineer in the comments here https://plus.google.com/+TheodoreTso/posts/2vEekAsG2QT tl;dr: Don't think you can outsmart your hardware (Especially not on windows without stuff like powertop and the likes to actually measure the impact or non-impact of things you changed). Windows isn't as dumb as it was about scheduling and what was maybe needed during the Pentium4 era to manage power/CPU states is irrelevant since the first Core iX cpus.

The fusion product is the characteristic parameter for an ignited fusion plasma, in which the temperature of the plasma is maintained solely by the heating from the helium nuclei released. According to the Lawson criterion this requires that the product T n tauE of the temperature T, density n and energy confinement time tauE be in excess of 3 x 10^21 keV s m-3. (With T = 1 eV ~ T = 11, 6 · 10^3 K) Its the product of plasma density, temperature and containment duration. (quoted from http://www.ipp.mpg.de/1766307/fusionsprodukt) Ow man that really sucks. I mean complex field geometry torus reactors like the Wendelstein 7x are only feasible since the 90s due to advances in computing technology. I guess they should just have asked you then. Would have saved them a lot of time and effort.

I wouldn't call these guys small time with > 1000 staff, they finished construction earlier this year. JET is also still kicking around as well as several others. In the old fusion energy thread there was a neat graph showing the progress over the years done by the various experiments and their upgrades. Here you go: ... german but self-explanatory: http://i.imgur.com/97UEIFt.jpg

Depends on your definition of scam. "Insert insane F-35 project/unit cost".

I didn't say ITER is the only valid approach. I said the specific proposal by lockheed is to be ridiculed because of ridiculous claims and cheap pitch tactics instead of published literature: "It fits on a large truck" ... so does the main reactor vessel of any 100mw el fission reactor in a plant/ship, doesnt mean you still need a whole building worth of equipment to keep it running (exclusing fission specific safety systems). "One gram of fusion fuel contains three bazilion times more energy than a gram of gasoline". Big numbers, yay. The original anouncement is almost two years old: https://plus.google.com/+SolveforX/posts/HsTGsEz3Zpv The last memo sounds a lot like: "When projecting costs we were off by one to three trailing zeroes, pls gib dod monies". I realize this is not cold fusion. The point is: With their proposal it is as reputable as cold fusion. Pitch the solution to the worlds energy problems - production ready within 10 years. You want proof? Uh.. "Our approach is X times better and more awesome, good enough?".

Smells like LENR & cold fusion in here. (And has been in the year since this was released first.) Seriously. If you claim your approach will ridicule tens of thousands of man-hours from other scientists actively researching and engineering in the respective field and all you publish is a corporate press release citing great business opportunities in increasing global power demand and 'murrican power projection ... don't expect to be taken seriously.

Onboard gpus are no longer a thing. Both AMD and Intel put them on the same piece of silicon as the cpu now. You'll always get one unless you buy a FX (they are too fat on their own to make it economic to produce with an integrated gpu) or a xeon. If your budget is tight another opportunity is to go for a Pentium G3258 "Aniversary edition" (55€ here) - you can overclock it easily (otherwise you need a ix-xxxk cpu to overclock) to 4ghz and beyond and when you have more funds later replace it with a i5-4xxx or their one of their broadwell sucessors. As for mainboards: Any ATX board with Z97 chipset from the brand of your choice should do. (Asrock Z97 Pro3 etc.) But it would be a downgrade for anything making use of more than two to three threads.

If you are going to switch the mainboard, save some more and buy an i5. Even the 8310 would be a sidegrade for KSP and other games. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/700?vs=147 http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=147 Even an i3 curbstomps the FX series in KSP, as seen in DMagics benchmark compilation. http://imgur.com/a/UoRjf#2 http://imgur.com/a/Qq6Ic#4

@Istagg 1) right click control surfaces 2) ...? 3) Profit!

If re-building and flying ww II hardware is the only thing you want to do ... why not just boot up war thunder or cliffs of dover? You'll never get even close to these results of those within KSP (working cockpit internals, weather, flight model, armamant, meaningful missions, weather, sound, actual graphics for the ground) even with hundreds of hours put into specifically created mods and parts.

At one point it is no longer feasible to support legacy hardware. You may be able to install new-ish apps on an android device from 2010. But you really don't want to use them anyways. 320p (~ 400p if you are lucky) screens, < 500mb RAM, Gingerbread and slow-poke CPUs you'd rather read a book than do anything on them, including bingo.

Upgrading your GPU from "Cardboard with circuits painted on it" will help.

Something like you described would just impose artificial difficulty aka patience while waiting for a burn/intercept and fine tuning of maneuver nodes which is already abysmal without mods. The basic challenge (match planes / Hohmann it/ fine tuning) would be exactly the same as for Eelo etc.

x86 is historically named after the Intel 8086 cpu from 1978. x64 is shorthand for x86-64 ... or x86 architecture with extended capabilities including (theoretical) 64 bit ("aka more than 4gb") adressing of memory and some new instructions that go along with it.

Frame time differences between consecutive frames: Notice the "estimated - feels like x FPS" calculated Leonidas3 (Named after the guy who had the idea for the scaling). According to that 0.23 brought a felt FPS boost of 17%. It is calculated by diminishing the influence of the fast frames on overall FPS. Leonidas3: Mean value of the 90% slowest frames. Fast frames <20ms are scaled back logarithmical. 0.22 0.23 More stats

1) Visit DMagics blerg: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/1170-CPU-Performance-Database 2) read 3) apologize to _Aramchek 4) /thread If you really want to record gameplay footage and are scraping at the poverty line: Quicksync in any core-i with iGPU will handle 1080p encoding with almost no CPU overhead (use OBS).

If someone has a compareable 0.23 / 0.22 fraps frametime csv I can run a brief statistical analysis with frappo on them (no time to play/test myself at the moment). Bonus late 90s style graphs included. One reason for the felt leap in smoothness (no idea, haven't even started 0.23 yet) may be this: If you have alternating frametimes of (e.g.) 10ms and 60 ms your game will always feel like you play it on ~17 fps (60ms/frame) despite actually measuring an average ~28fps. The slow frames give you a visual impression of a low framerate*. So if your slow 60ms frames (the lower"channel" in his last weird frametime/fps hybrid-diagram) get boosted to a 40ms "channel" you gain a visual impression of 25fps - a boost of 50% despite having only gained ~40%fps. Not the best example, but I hope you get the idea. tl;dr: FPS (especially average FPS) suck for a objective comparison of fluidity when playing a game. Better measurements are: % of time spent in frames rendered slower than 16.66ms/33.33ms (60fps/30fps) or better yet a graph of the cummulative distribution of frame times. *This effect is known as microstuttering and was (and partially still is) a major factor for the suckiness of Crossfire/SLI Setups (They tended to have wildly varying frametimes, giving a verry sluggish impression despite having good fps ... which is why its always important to check the frame time distribution)

Glorious PC gaming master race machines usually don't have casual mobile connectivity aka bluetooth.

You see them small numbers on the wikipedier? Is citations. Good stuff you should try them sometime. Much information many serious. very extensive wow

I think he reckons that there are two "community managers" for a dev team of four. Which is ... odd.

This doesn't really apply at this small size. Stuff like art assets, part models or sound files can easily be sequestered away and working on them does not impair the people working on the code base at all. Team sizes up to seven members do not require significant overhead, since the consensus in project management is that they can be coordinated by a single person. Afther that you'd start to see more overhead - but still far from "more people clicking around in MS project than coding" like you suggest

He claims getting 60 fps everywhere (The quest for karma on reddit promotes painting in broad strokes and stating absolutes). You should do ok with a 640, but don't expect miracles.

Fits the preliminary results from the cpu performance thread. What a joke. No wonder it is so far down on the changelog.

After the release of 0.19 (if not sooner) it became clear that SQUAD developed a serious hernia while trying to stem KSP with the intended scope and the underlying base technology known as Unity "casual games made easy" 3d. I have been around since 0.11 and honestly I don't care anymore. Just looking at how long the IVA placeholders have survived in game (IVAs were added 15 months ago) shows the state of the project(-management). I easily got my moneys worth out of KSP, which is great. But I feel there was a ton of potential squandered due to a lacking technical base and no development experience at SQUADs side. I know most of you enjoy year three of KSP alpha and that's nice. A look to r/ksp shows me that the majority of people even seem to think of KSP as beautiful so I can see my expectations are somewhat different from the norm (I'd rather call minecraft or starbound with their consistent pixelated art style beautifull than the z fighting LOD-flickering empty planet surfaces of KSP). What really astonishes me though is the KSP community. There were two people in charge of organizing Kerbalcon, yet no one deemed it necessary to check the stream setup. After 30 minutes of video cut outs and subsequent microphone on reverbating glass table I switched off (Kerbalcon '12 was already seriously plagued with audio problems). The setup was not worthy even of a small time streamer on twitch yet again the KSP community in general seemed impressed of this level of community interaction. tl:dr: Meh.