pa1983

I have been trying out mods. People often tell me that my stock craft would not work in KSP if aerodynamic system was more realistic like FAR, if reentry could overheat your craft, if intake abuse was made impossible etc etc. I also wanted to see if more specialized part would make it easier to create a craft I had in mind. So I decided to set up a KSP dir with just mods. FAR, Deadly Reentry, B9 pack and KW rocketry and some other mods. My verdict is that FAR and Deadly reentry do NOT make the game harder. In fact its just a bit different and it took me a few days to get use to it but that was about it. Deadly reentry have so fare only killed my test crafts where I intentionally wanted to see what it took to kill them. Having more specilized parts like B9 pack offers do reduce part count to about 1/5 BUT having a ton of cargo bays to opt from did not help that much when they are to small, the ramp cant fit more then half a jumbo tank at the most with out getting stuck etc etc. So I would probably prefer more procedural generated generic parts with simpler geometrical shapes and hinges and stuff in the stock game to supplement stock cargo holds and ramps. But any way I ended up with a 254 or so ton SSTO that took 21+ tons to Duna and came back nonstop. Could take a bit more but the craft realy needed a bigger wing to be realy successful but it was more of a test then anything. I dont see why SSTO spaceplanes would not be as viable in the final version of KSP as they are now. If you are interested I have a longer description in the youtube video down below. http://youtu.be/Sp6fWWVilaI

Yes very good video. I have been trying to do gravity assists with well varied results and some how its pretty obvious when you show it, after all I use the same basic techniques to get to Duna and Laythe and back with my spaceplanes but actually understanding how to exploit it to its maximum still eluded me a bit. This helped a lot in explaining how to think about gravity assist and how to plan for it. Also I would love to know what mod that was to change the Conics mode. Seem very useful.

Well spaceplanes usually dont stack engines. Its an SSTO so fairings are only for esthetics's and FAR might remove drag penalty not sure but any way I use them for interplanetary travel. Got to Duna with 4K LOX left... but didnt help when I stall at 100m/s Have to fix some STOL or VTOL system to reduce speed. Any way it would be nice with a NERVA or two for spaceplane. I use the 2.5m NERVA now with fairings from KW rocketry but adding fairings that are meant to be jettisoned seems a bit wrong But it looks pretty well despite the hackwork so I suspect a proper made one would look even better. This is the craft Im working on. Some how I need it to land on Duna but the 2x280kN NERVA's are what gets me there and once I can land hopefully back again with out refuelling. Had about 4K oxidizer left when I got to Duna. The engines are the closest to the fuselage covered by fairings from KW rocketry.

Nice engines. I like how they look. Im trying out some mods and I used this with B9 and KW rocketry for a spaceplane Im working on. Got it in to orbit Relay like them and there dont seem to be a lot of NERVA engines around that looks good but yours are very nice. I would love to see shrouded versions, Identical but with faring just for better visual aerodynamics. Could even be its own separate part. I used the long fairings in KW rocketry over them and that looks very nice on a spaceplane.

I think people are mixing up Processes and Threads here. A Process is a program so when you start KSP it is ONE process, has its own memory space isolated from other programs by the OS. Now a typical program will be one process and that process will run one thread. Thats how computer programs on PC have worked for decades. Then we got modern dual and quad core processors. People just talks about cores this days and still refers to the howl thing as one processor. The correct term is Chip-level multiprocessing or CMP and thats what all modern processors are. It basically means more then one processor on a signal silicone die. There have also been MCM implementations, Multi Chip Module and that means more then one peace of silicone in on package. Core 2 Quade was actually both CMP and MCM because it used two Core 2 Duo dies in one package. Modern processors have many processor cores, they are fully working processors by them self (most of the time with some exceptions) on the same peace of Silicone. A processor or core, same thing can only run on thread at a time. Its not possible for two or more Cores to run the same thread on a normal PC. To do so would require hardware support to fuse the resources of more then one core and share them troug the same set of registers. Alpha was going to do that with there processors but they where cancelled before that ever happened. So its not possible to share threads over cores. A thread can be rescheduled for another core but that only means your moving the work flow from one core to another. To effectively use say a 4 core processor you need at least 4 threads that have equal demanding work flow. If one Thread demands more then the other threads you will end up waiting for the slower thread. This is the problem with KSP. It can thread widely but not very well balanced. When I run it under linux it spawns like 4-6 threads If I recall. Problem is that on Thread requires 100% CPU utilization of one core while the other 3-4 threads only uses about 5% etch so it wont realy mater if I have 2 cores or 6 cores because 4 threads at 5% etch for a total of 20% can easily be run on a single core and share time on it (OS will manage this) while they are waiting for the other thread that is taxing one core to 100%. So its apparent that the main thread needs to be divided up in more threads to spread the load better. Biggest problem here is physx that runs on the main thread. It would not only need its own thread but it needs to run on preferable 4 equally divided threads with more or less equal work flows to effectively use a 4 core processor. So no KSP will never run one thread over more then one core because thats not how most computers work. There have been processors and systems suggested that can merge cores in to one at demand but thats pretty irrelevant until some one makes a x86 processor like that but its unlikely to happen considering that cores to day have a hard time extracting more parallelism as it is. Running more threads per core is the way things are going this days because its cheap and efficient assuming software is extensively multi threaded. Pretty much all modern PC's can run at least 4 threads simultaneously either trough native number of cores or trough SMT ("Simultaneous Multi Threading", Intels Hyper Threading technology is an example of SMT implementation where one core can let two threads share all the resources) or CMT (Clustred MultiThreading, Used in AMD Bulldozer and Piledriver where some resources are shared and others are not) to increase efficiency. So for a game like KSP to use a modern PC better it needs at least 4 threads that are balanced well enough that all of them can utilize all the cores to 100%. Now 100% is unrealistic except for them most cutting edge software, I have seen reports that Battle Field 4 can use 6 cores more ore less flat out and 4 cores with 2 way SMT for 8 threads total can be used close to 80% utilization. One also have to remember that even if a game could use 4 cores to 100% that wont mean 4x performance boost. If implemented badly using more cores can be slower even. But theres no denying that being able to split physics over many cores properly would speed up a game like KSP a lot. Im no developer so Im not saying its easy or that I know a ton but from a consumer point of view, if unity dont solve this problem with multi threading I dont see how they can be a candidate for games on the next gen consoles that will feature 8 core processors and proper GPGPU functionality. Previous gen consoles introduced multi threading extensively, 3 cores and 6 threads on the 360 even by to days standard was a challange to get the most out of it and the PS3, well being an odd ball using two ISA, PPC for the main processor running two threads and 7 or so SPE cell processors with there own ISA and performance over easy development aprotch realy forced developers to stop being lazy if they wanted to make something run fast on those platforms. Cell really took it a bit to fare and thats what basically killed it. Traditional Multicore General Purpose Processors and GPGPU replaced that more or less, fast and easier to develop for. Next gen consoles will be a modern PC under the hood but to day not even a PC can run software at its fastest with out multi threading. Just is not enough parallelism to extract any more with conventional processor design to make the cores that much faster with etch generation. So if unity wants to be attractive for developers, because the consumers will demand that the software works on a modern PC then Unity must adapted to modern hardware or developers wont use it if the software runs badly. People tend to hate consoles and say they kill PC gaming, well I see them as the hardware forcing developers to use new technology. Last generation they had to learn to multithread properly now they will take that to the next level, not only on the CPU but the GPU to.

Really beautifully made parts!

I kind of like this trade off. If its not a structural part to then the craft can be wounded only. After all not all rockets explode because if a failure. if so Apollo 13 would have had a different ending when its O2 tank blew. But maybe the final game will have some proximity calculations done to take explosions in to account and if that would trigger a secondary explosion on other parts.

Steam only? No Linux port? To bad for them then. Interesting otherwise.

makes landing safer with spaceplanes etc. Realy no point in landing with to much fuel. I dump fuel by shutting of Ithere lox or the fuel then run the engines to deplete on of them then I switch to dump the last fuel.

Made a Replica of the HOTOL, the first concept to use a SABER engine but was cancelled due to CoM and CoL problems and problems with the SABER engines. So its the predecessor to the Skylon. Nothing fancy just waned to do something different. makes for a good crew replacement craft for space stations. Gets in to orbit in just a few minutes.

My Stock HOTOL replica. Works very nicely despite its odd configuration but it was not with out some tweaking.

Have not played much KSP. Lack of new stock parts etc and overall lack of improvements in the latest versions of the game surrounding spaceplanes I kind of lost the interest. Have not flown a spaceplane to orbit and back since I built the Kosmos a month ago. Trying to get back. Fixed a new stock cargo bay for my Falcon XIV Kosmos. Needs more testing but so fare seems to work every time. I was kind of interested in making a KSP version of the HOTOL, the space plane that never flew but was the predecessor to the Skylon. Its small and rear most mounted wing makes it have that futuristic look that I just love. Tough it makes for a very usntable craft in KSP since CoL will shift forward the more one is rolling unlike a center mounted wing so I had to add internal wings in the rear, mounted vertically to compensate, basically it has the same lift no mater how much its banking. Made it in to a 3 man spaceplane, no cargo capacity bout that is doable but I have the Kosmos for that so I figured I could get the part count down further by having a pure Crew Shuttle. 283 parts and it handles better then I expected considering the real world craft had CoM and CoL problems, had that to but got it good enough that it will fly just fine. Bit temperamental thats all but still relatively stable. Its a bit overpowered so can go well past 2100m/s on jets alone, also has a small 20kN rocket engine for Orbital Manoeuvres. 400km orbit was not a problem. Could have gone a lot higher. Its a bit iffy taking off with due to its low nose and fare rear wheels (lack of better stock wheels caused that compromise). Reentry was stable and landing was a peace of cake. Glided all the way to the runway. Touching down was not a problem despite the narrow wheel base and the fare rear mounted wheels makes sure the craft stays down once it touches the runway. The craft is a fast climber and has high acceleration. So it will get in to orbit with in minutes. So makes for a good Crew replacement craft for spacestations. Probably gonna upload it in my sstos.zip file later when I have made some final test flights and changes to the craft. Will try to have the engines push trough CoM so it cant spin out due to flame outs. RCS needed adjusting to to make docking easier. And Yes I call the craft HOTOL Forgot to take some good pictures but well if and when I make my next video it will probably be in that any way.

Add more antennas. Works fine I promise.

I know this thread is old but I can confirm that I had this bug ever since 0.18 up till 0.22 and I'm getting awfully tired of it. If I run 1280x960 for example shadows work but if I run 1920x1080 it wont. I have always lived with out the shadows, can bee seen in most of my movies except for a few captured with the native linux port. Its only the windows version that has problems for me under wine. And a faulty GFX card would not produce a predictable problem like this so its software for sure. I know more users have had this problem to where lowering the rendering quality worked but do not work for me. I run a GTX570 with 1.25Gb of ram and a i7 3930K @ 4Ghz and total of 32Gb of ram. I assume sal_vager runs windows? If so this is not just a wine under linux problem, I figured it was but then its a real problem with the game. I run a up to date gentoo system, but no driver or other changes have ever made a difference. Also AA do work for me even under wine. Byt dont expect F1 to capture AA on the screenshot. Will not do so for me. I see the difference IRL tough. You need some other capture software to get the AA effect on a screenshoot/video.

Part clutter could to some extent be solved if one could sort parts once self. I build spaceplanes but I still do use the same engines etc. Would be nice if I could make a tab with my favourite parts. Also I find my self switching between two different parts very often. Some tab or something for the last few used parts and maybe even a key to toggle trough them. Would reduce the frustration of clicking back and forth. Rockets have decent amount of parts, I do wish there was like a cluster of 4x NV-1 in a 2.5m part with proper fairings. But considering how few parts spaceplanes have building rockets is super easy from a part perspective and spaceplanes requires a lot of time just trying to do more with less making it pretty boring right now. Longer landing gears often come up, payload bays and hinges to do your own etc. Some more wing peaces to opt from or some way of setting the size they should have at least.

Yea the new ASAS is pretty strange acting. Seems to work pretty fine in space with rockets and smaller crafts. But spaceplanes. If I just want to correct my Roll My pitch can go 5 degrees of to. I was under the impression the previous ASAS only changed the Axis you gave inputs to but now all of them seems to disengage during input causing drifts all over the place. Basically its almost like the old one where you held F or toggled T ASAS on and off during corrections. 0.21 ASAS was nice in the way that you did not have to control yaw,roll and pitch all at once. I find that I must Use F and hold the craft at a point where I want it to go now and then let F go quickly. Just annoying. ASAS was better in 0.21. Lucky for me almsot all my spaceplanes are perfectly balanced but I cant imagine the migraine other people must have with less balanced crafts.

Only Mun and Kerbin have biomes.

I do agree with the author here. Its pretty easy to get pints and very little bonus returning. I do like to add that when you do flybys for some reason the last one counts. So theres Little point in going on a tour of the system and returning if not all your flybys count. Lots of such small odd things that are just illogical. I went by Mun, Minmus, Duna and Ike and returned and for that I got a flyby bonus of 30 points I think from the last body I passed. Pretty pointless.

Thats why I design my crafts to be easy to fly and almost impossible to crash unless you intentionally do it. My latest crafts descends 5m/s or less going level so you can touch down on all wheels at 45m/s or so. Super easy to land. All those small high speed crafts people usually start out with are near impossible to land. I also find bigger craft easier to land, there not as unpredictable.

yep very easy. I managed 6200 points with two probes in little more then a days worth of playing and Im not even that good at manoeuvring. 2800 more points and the tree is all unlocked for me. So a bit simple but I do think it would be hard for new comers because they have to learn the the game dynamics to. I hope we get currency soon so things cost money or else career is boring.

They close as soon as they transmitted. And they wont transmit any faster. Sure you might save some time if it didn't toggle but the solution is to use more antennas. I have 3 of them that way I can send data repeatedly from one goo pod and once science pod. Antennas will toggle and transmit in as they become available, no interaction needed. Probably how it was intended. Use more antennas and you wont have a problem and you can send more data at once. Its not like they are heave or anything plus the simplest once seems to work just as well as the more power hungry once.

They have made som realy weird decisions. If you do a flyby of more then one planet/mun you only get points for the last one when you recover the craft. That do not make sens to me at all. Kerbals have bad memory or something? Same probably goes with landing but not tested. You can only bring back one sample per pod etc etc. So yes you can "lose" collected points if you do the same thing some where else if you do not recover the craft or transmit the data. Tough returning back and collecting the data you lost is possible. Science points in a zone is not reduced until its received by KSC RnD any way you dont actually lose any points just because you data was overwritten. Thats why there is a delete button for data. 50 points for on craft seems very inefficient. I got 30-40 points just with a pod on the launch pad and some EVA there. Even the simplest craft should be able to do 200 points or so. The howl system is pretty odd and unbalanced and repetitive if you ask me. I think people are having a hard time getting a grip on it. But once you know the "rules" its easy to exploit.

Well from what I have been told and what I have noticed is that sure you get more points at once for collecting the data (100%) BUT you can collect fewer times before all the science points are harvested in a zone. So if you decide to send data where you get 20% or 40% you dont realy lose the other 60-80% from what I can tell because you can collect and transmit data MANY more times and thats what other people seems to have concluded to. My first probe I did flybys off the Mun, Minmus, Duna, Ike and the Sun (just a mater of getting in to its SOI nothing more) and collected data and also some from Kerbin I had left over from a previous mission. That paid out almost 1600 points. Next probe, simple one, Two small goo canisters for symmetry and one 1m science bay and 3 antennas because, small fuel tank and a 909 engine for orbital manoeuvring. With more antennas I can send more data faster when one or more antennas are busy there is at least on free so more then on is actually faster from a practical point of view. This probe went to the Jool System, I collected data from Jool, all of it from outer most SOI and then all the data my batteries could manage from the aerobreaking on the dark side of Jool when I was in the Atmosphere I got some points from that. All planets/moons seems to have a zone closer to the surface that offers more points. Hight of this seems to vary between 200km and 10km. Smaller the lower you need to go. Then I did another aerobreak around Laythe collecting all the data on the outer SOI and some but not all data offered closer to Laythe until my batteries was drained again. I also went To Vall, Collected all data from outer SOI, Some offered in lower orbit. I also went to Tylo and collect all data in the outer SOI and some in a lower orbit. Pol I went by twice collecting all data in both a high and low orbit. I also went by Bop and collected all the data in a high orbit and some in a low orbit. One will be doing a lot of clicking sending all this date thats for sure. Repetitive to say the least. Then I reentered Laythes atmosphere and collected more of the data there until the batteries where almost flat. Then I deployed a chute and landed the pod in the waters of Laythe and collected all the data offered there and recharged the batteries to transmit it back, about 420 points I got for sampling the water alone. In the end I ended up with 4600 points on the second probe so a total of 6200 points in a days wort of playing with two probes. I so fare have not found a real advantage to the better antennas, seems to use more power only, even the small basic once works fine in the Jool system and the game picks them by default to for me at least even if the craft has more exotic models. But any way its very easy to collect a ton of points. I have unlocked all but 7 techs in the tree and I need only 2800 more points and all that from just 2 days of playing. I have not landed on any other body then the Mun so there is tons of points left and I still have 4 planets/moons to do flybys off so thats at lest 1200+ points alone I would think probably twice that if I collect it all by going in to low orbit. So sure you can get bonus for a return trip but well going with probes makes the most sense. Its easy and requires small rockets and once you have the point for the big parts, jumbo tank, mainsail then it makes sense to land and get those points and return. For example I brought 6 basic canisters of goo to the mun and brought them back. Got 282 points for that but sure it took only 40 minutes or so. Maybe 1h total in building a rocket and getting back to kerbin. But still returning samples is not that efficient when your fare out. Better save that for last I would say and probe first. But my tip so fare based on two days off playing is. 3 antennas, two goo pods for symmetry (if you can overcome the unbalance in other ways one could be fine), one 1m science bay, 800 worth of battery charge or more. All the solar panels you can carry, the small once can take a earobreak so thats good if sun is available they will recharge the battery. A mid sized 1m fuel tank and a 909 engine. This is my best probe so fare in career measured in number of points collected. 4600 in a single trip. Im a lousy pilot and I dont build rockets a lot so well one could defiantly do better but that probe worked just fine. it uses a fare bit off more advanced parts but they are not realy needed. Basic antenna will do, basic 909 engine will do, basic solar panels will do. No a problem to get a pod like that out in the Kerbal solar system with most of the basic 1m parts. Just do some science on the launchpad, on Kerbin in general, do a LKO mission, Lunar flyby etc and you will have unlocked enough to go deeper and get a ton of points. As a Spaceplane geek I am I tryed to unlock those stuff first but the tech tree dont realy make sense so in retrospect probes seems to require the least effort and give the most gain. So if you want points fast to unlock the tree thats what I would do.

Yea Landing gears are massless in flight but have mass in SPH/VAB so place last as mentioned. Its also weird that the high traction wheels have lower mass and power consumption then the original wheels.

Yea would be nice to know how this was implemented and how to best exploit it (no not exploiting in the bad sens but the good one).