Lord Aurelius

Members
  • Content Count

    659
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

393 Excellent

About Lord Aurelius

  • Rank
    Supreme Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I don't see an in-game programming system as replacing action groups, but rather complementing them. For example, action groups can run code snippets, and code could toggle an action group. If you don't want to use the coding system, the action groups would still work the same way they always have. On the topic of a stock programming system, yes please. A drag and drop code block interface would fit the game perfectly, and would enable a ton more functionality and automation. As long as your vehicle has some sort of guidance computer onboard (anything with a probe core or crew capsule, external seats don't count) it could execute the programs.
  2. Did you use any life support recyclers when you tried those mods? How long of missions were you trying to do? All LS mods I tried (mostly TAC life support and UFI Life Support) had pretty good balance IMHO where the crew capsules had enough LS for early LKO missions, for Mun/Minmus missions you had to add a little bit, but the weight only really became a big concern for interplanetary if you weren't using recyclers. Same thing would happen if you wanted to do an interplanetary mission with just batteries/fuel cells without bringing along solar panels or RTGs (hmm, now that sounds like an interesting challenge). Sure, you're going to need a lot more than a MK1 capsule to get a Kerbal across the solar system alive, but isn't that the point of playing with life support, to eliminate the realism break of being able to do that? Your second point is valid for LS, but is also a problem in stock KSP for dV since unless you're using a dV map/calculator the game gives you zero info on how much dV you actually need and you're pretty much guessing on that front as well. Definitely an issue worth addressing if some sort of stock LS is added, but not a new issue for the base game either. I've long thought that KSP could greatly benefit from a mission planner that would let you place a bunch of maneuver nodes and get an idea of the launch windows, dV requirements and mission duration, and it would nicely solve both issues. Would be even better if you could see the mission plan during your flight and have the maneuver nodes prepopulated.
  3. Orion drives sound like the perfect solution to less than ideal landing sites. Nothing like dropping a few nukes on the way down to flatten out pesky slopes and leave a nice, level glass-lined crater to land in.
  4. Another random point on this topic: throttling isn't inherently a bad thing. Running CPUs/GPUs beyond their cooling capacity for short periods of time has been one of the big reasons laptop/smartphones (and many SFF desktops) have the performance they do. It allows them to have the performance of a much more powerful processor for a short period of time without the corresponding increase in cooling weight/bulk/cost, and for many workloads (web browsing, application loading, etc) there's plenty of downtime between tasks that the end user sees their machine performing much better than it would if the CPU were limited to what the cooling system could actually cool at steady state. Same goes for a beefy custom cooling solution, it's great that you can run max boost constantly, but how much more performance could you get in tasks that don't 100% load your hardware (i.e. most games that aren't KSP) if you allowed it to boost beyond even what your crazy cooling system can handle (in other words, what overclocking does)?
  5. For custom desktops that may be true, in OEM systems the manufacturers have a lot of tuning parameters to play with to adjust the thermal behavior of the CPU to fit whatever cooling solution they've built into their design. End users can also tweak these with appropriate software utilities (had to do that on an ultrabook that insisted on bouncing the CPU between 100% and thermal slowdown mode under load without settling on a steady state in between). But yes, the best way to get the thermal load is to actually measure it (or in the case of end users like ourselves, read CPU reviews where they measured it and tested with various coolers).
  6. Fair enough, if you've got a custom/botique gaming desktop with appropriate cooling then the clocks will always be at max boost even under load. However, for the vast majority of PCs (including most desktops) the CPU and GPU will only run at max boost in lighter workloads, hit them them hard and they will heat up faster than the cooling can remove the heat and they will throttle. An average desktop CPU tops out at around 90W (lower TDP parts will potentially boost into this range as well briefly and throttle sooner, the TDP is a measure of average power), anything less than a high end air cooler/liquid cooling will have trouble keeping up with this rate of heat production under sustained load.
  7. Ugh, not another one of these "realistic" space movies that's anything but to join the likes of Gravity and Interstellar. If you're going to make a realistic, hard sci-fi movie, then stick to real science. If you want to do crazy stuff, then either make a space fantasy like Star Wars, or do a comedy like Rocket Man.
  8. For laptops (or any PC really) that lives on poorly implemented thermal throttling, possibly. ALL PCs now (even giant DTR laptops and desktops) live on thermal throttling, which is why there's separate base and boost clocks for CPUs and GPUs. If well implemented, that throttling will maximize performance for a given TDP in intermittent load scenarios (i.e. normal everyday PC use with opening web pages and programs). During heavy sustained loads, ideally the parts will slow down to achieve an acceptable steady state temperature that won't result in overheating. In a machine with poor cooling design that puts temperature sensitive components next to hotspots like the CPU/GPU with a potentially inadequate cooling system and throttling algorithm on top, then yes, reduced lifespan could be a real possibility.
  9. Unless there's something already wrong with your PC, the only real concern on that list would be lag or running out of battery if you're not plugged in. Overheating in modern machines generally manifests itself as lag since the chips slow down to reduce heat. Crashing/freezing could potentially happen due to driver issues. Fire is so unlikely that it's not even worth considering, your machine will hit thermal shutdown and turn off long before it gets hot enough to ignite anything. At the end of the day, KSP is just a particularly demanding piece of software on the CPU side due to the physics, you could generate a more demanding load on the CPU/GPU using benchmark software.
  10. For some reason, despite my love for rocketry and space, I missed out on this gem until the other day when a friend showed it to me (WARNING: VERY LARGE IMAGE). For those of you not already familiar with the Rockwell Space Plan, it was developed in the 1980s by a Rockwell engineer, outlining an ambitious plan for human expansion into space, including colonizing other planets and interstellar travel. It's based on real tech and expected near future tech, with hard sci-fi taking over near the end. From looking through the plan, it looks like with the new engines and colony mechanics it would be entirely possible to fully follow this in KSP2 without mods. Anyone else curious to try to follow this plan in KSP2?
  11. Some more oddball planets I would like to see in KSP2 (mostly inspired by existing planet packs for KSP1): Super-fast spinning planetoid Rotational velocity at the equator is greater than the escape velocity Could be the solid metal core of a much larger planet that was set spinning at a high rate of speed by whatever cataclysm set the core free Cube Planet Unusual planet with 8 perfectly symmetrical mountains that make the planet look like a cube Bonus points for having an atmosphere, with the tops of the mountains above the atmosphere Even more bonus points for having craters in a d6 pattern on the 6 faces Shattered planet Collection of small planetoids and a bunch of asteroids loosely orbiting each other in close proximity A bit more on the sci-fi side, but would be interesting to be able to fly through a large debris field Crushing gravity Super-earth or ice giant with something like 5G (i.e. on the upper end of what's possible to escape from) Disk world Spinning metallic disc Could be a blob of molten metal that was ejected into space and the spinning motion pulled it into the disc shape as it cooled
  12. I would like to see the context of that comment, as terraforming is often used to mean changing a planet's climate to make it more habitable (i.e. super advanced colonization) as opposed to literally reshaping the terrain.
  13. Not sure if this will ever make it into KSP2 or what the limitations of the Unity engine will be, but I might as well mention it now for the best chance of the devs being able to at least lay the foundation for making it possible later. Given the multitude of ways we already have in KSP to deliver large amounts of energy into a celestial body via large rockets and redirected asteroids (which will be even further expanded in KSP2 with extremely high output nuclear engines), it seems fitting that we should be able to leave permanent scars in the terrain around the solar system. I would like to see this as a core feature given how deeply integrated it would be to the game engine, but I also recognize it would be a fairly low priority over other essential features. So maybe not a launch feature, but something that could be introduced in a future update, with the ground work being laid before launch and the rest of the feature being fleshed out afterwards. What do you guys think? Would you like to see deformable terrain? If so, would you like to see this as a core feature, DLC, or a mod?