Jump to content

Eric S

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eric S

  1. Because Unity doesn't allow for rigid body simulation to run on the GPU yet? Nor did any of the other major physics engines, last I checked. Unity 5.1 allows hair to be done on the GPU, but that's it so far.
  2. They are. It's not quite linear scaling (it takes three cores to double the work that one core can do), but it can be done without much extra development work, as I understand it. This is one of the reasons that I almost always spend some time lowering expectations when discussing U5 performance. Yes, the rigid-body microbenchmarks run 50% faster, but I don't expect us to see that much of a performance boost since that's only part of what's happening. I'd love to see this particular issue optimized in 1.1. Between the faster PhysX and this optimization, we'd get to more accurately see wha
  3. Correct on both counts. In 1.1, it will almost definitely be the single 300 part craft that lags more. Prior to that, I haven't noticed much of a difference.
  4. I was watching a documentary a few days ago, and they said that debris larger than a pea can penetrate the ISS, and most tracked objects are the size of a baseball or larger. So the stuff between the size of a pea and a baseball would be most likely to cause this kind of accident.
  5. I agree on the parachutes, but not the heatshields, because aerodynamic heat shields would make reentry heat worse. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, a pointy surface forward will heat up more than a flat surface forward. From what I've read, it has to do with flat surfaces causing the shock layer to be pushed out farther ahead of the vehicle. EDIT: I've got a bit more time, so I'll go into more detail now. The first and most important thing to understand is that reentry heat doesn't come from friction, it comes from the atmosphere compressing into a shockwave because the craft is movin
  6. I can't answer on the subject of shaders and lighting. There are visual improvements in U5, but I'm pretty sure Squad would have to do some work to implement the improvements. Squad is reimplementing the UI with the intent of being identical to the user, but consolidating three UI subsystems into a single subsystem to improve efficiency. Since U5 uses a more recent version of PhysX, we should see some improvements there. Most likely, we'll be able to handle craft with more parts, though how much of an increase isn't certain. This breaks down into two factors. First, the PhysX code is more
  7. Unity 5.1 is the latest, but Squad says that there were issues with 5.1 that didn't apply to 5.0, so they are, initially at least, targetting 5.0.
  8. While I'd like to play with N-body physics, I have to concur with r4pt0r in that it doesn't belong in the base game. I look forward to seeing Principia grow and become more stable and accessible.
  9. From what I've seen, Unity doesn't support multiple windows (neither 4 nor 5), so the only way to display on multiple monitors would be to stretch a single window across two monitors and for KSP to be aware of where the split happened.
  10. Not to get off topic, but you can probably save some delta-v and not have to worry about precise timing (unless you want to land somewhere very specific) by using the constant-altitude landing method. The savings over a mainly-vertical suicide burn on Tylo are going to be significant. If you're talking about a hybrid (constant-altitude just above the peak terrain until you're on a soon-to-impact trajectory then a suicide burn to finish the landing) then ignore me.
  11. Ooh, fun, I'm sitting just a few miles outside the "I-5 corridor" mentioned in that article, and this is the first I've heard about it. If it waits 30 years to happen, it probably won't be my problem, but when that's the best you can say about something, ugh.
  12. True, but the same can be said for real life captures as well, to varying degrees. Even things parked in L4/L5 aren't permanent, just stable for millions of years. I tend think of the permanence of a capture as a non-boolean quality of a capture, not a boolean requirement.
  13. Not really. With patched conics, if something enters an SoI with a given speed, it's going to exit the SoI with the same speed if it's only affected by gravity. Gravity slingshots don't change the orbital energy of the slingshottee within the SoI of the slingshotting celestial body, just the parent. Planets and stars capture rogue bodies mostly due to interactions with other bodies (N-body physics, gravitational braking using other celestial bodies orbiting the parent body, etc.) which won't happen in this situation. An asteroid getting captured around Kerbin due to interaction with the Mun
  14. Not surprising, my first instinct was that it was a flaw in the patched conics prediction. Basically, the reason it shouldn't work (and won't, except in cases where the simulation isn't as accurate as the math underlying the simulation), is because of the basics of orbital mechanics. Baring some outside force, you will arrive at the same altitude as you started at, and with an upward velocity equal to the downward velocity you started at.
  15. Depends on what I'm doing. For challenges, of course I play without MechJeb. Basic career mode I tend to either play without, or use it mostly as a fly-by-wire system (SmartASS, maneuver node editing, and sometimes maneuver node execution, but doing my own maneuver node creation). When I start playing with life support or other time sensitive mods, I start using something, be it MJ or KAC or such to tell me when the transfer windows are. Without time sensitive mods, I don't mind throwing my craft into orbit and then estimating how long till the transfer window by dropping a test maneuver n
  16. I'm not sure about saving in the VAB/SPH, but there is a text message letting you know it saved when you hit F5 (or an autosave checkpoint, for that matter). However, the text message doesn't show up centered in the window like some of the other status messages do, so you have to know where to look. It's on the right side about a quarter of the way up from the bottom, if I remember correctly.
  17. As some have pointed out, a straight up launch is less efficient, but Minmus has so little gravity that it doesn't really matter. Even on the Mun, the straight up launch only costs about 100 m/s more than the mostly-horizontal launch, assuming a munar TWR in the 5-6 range. Just keep in mind that as you take off from larger bodies (or similar bodies but with a lower TWR), you'll tend to have a lower TWR and the difference will become greater.
  18. From my reading on the subject, it looks like multithreaded physics won't be a big win unless you've got multiple craft within the physics window, so I'd recommend the G3258 unless you do a lot of multi-craft bases and similar operations. Note: docked craft will probably count as a single craft for purposes of this.
  19. I'm looking forward to hearing about this as well, even if it's bad news just so that I can set reasonable expectations. Too much is changing to assume that the microbenchmarks we've seen will be an accurate representation. For those that haven't been following, here's what I think will be the most significant factors in performance improvements: 1) PhysX optimizations: microbenchmarks indicate that for connected rigid bodies, the version of PhysX that U5 uses peaks at about 50% faster than the version that U4 uses. 2) Multithreaded physics simulation: I expect this to not affect single cra
  20. I didn't make it clear, but that's really what I focus on as well. There are very few things I've actually removed completely from my diet. Fish and chips being one of the few things that I removed that I'll miss. 2500 calories for a single meal just isn't worth it. I tend to describe it as making myself aware of the decisions I'm making and trying to make the better choice more often, but not to the exclusion of all the bad choices. I gained the weight slowly and my HbA1c isn't too serious yet, so I didn't need to make drastic choices to start losing weight. I won't know how my HbAIc is
  21. Agreed. I didn't go into that because I really don't have much advice there, my exercise plan experienced RUD due to unrelated medical issues. :-) Basically, this is the one area were I most agree with the diet buzz about eating minimally processed foods. Basically, processing or overcooking food tends to make the carbohydrates in the food more readily available to your body, causing the glycemic index of the food to spike. Minimally cooked pasta has a low glycemic index, overcook it and the GI triples, if I remember correctly.
  22. I can usually get them stable for years, but even then I want better. You can use Hyperedit or save file edits to park the satellites perfectly, but if you do that, you need to be careful never to make them your active ship, as the pass from on rails to physics and back to rails will throw the orbit off due to FP rounding errors. I find the best way to fine tune the satellite's orbit is to use a very weak engine (single LV-1 ANT or Ion engine), thrust limited as low as you can get it and then burned on minimum thrust. Oh, and you want the satellite to be very stable, no flexing, as the flexin
  23. Well, since the original question has been answered, I'll just offer moral support, having gone through the same thing about two months ago. In addition to paying attention to the glycemic index of foods, weight loss helps. I won't push any particular diet because I'm a firm believer that there is no one diet that's right for everyone. I'd recommend looking into nutritional info and a few different diets to find one that works for you, as a diet with perfect benefits that you can't stick to isn't going to help in the long run as much as any diet that helps that you can stick to, because sadl
  24. Of the subreddits I read on a daily basis, /r/kerbalspaceprogram is the only one that's gone private. It's being unofficially discussed in one other reddit that I read. I don't know the admin in question nor the reason for the ban, so I don't consider myself qualified to take a side. I know that some of the people that took offense over the fact that reddit hadn't said why they banned said user. Frankly, given that most employers in right to work states won't discuss why they fired someone with anyone but the fired person, that person's "chain of command," and the HR personnel that process
  • Create New...