Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dfthu

  1. On 2/22/2021 at 8:14 PM, Kwebib said:

    @blackrack@RyanRisingOkay, I have some logs and some screenshots.

    KSP Version 1.10.1

    JNSQ 0.9.0

    Kopernicus Stable R34

    EVE Redux

    Scatterer 0.0632 and 0.0723

    Logs: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ip76-oC5F8OMPgjO4L-PZxuBlcJOyrdP?usp=sharing

    Dusk, Scatterer 0.0632:

      Hide contents


    Dusk, Scatterer 0.0723:

      Reveal hidden contents


    Mid-day, Scatterer 0.0632:

      Reveal hidden contents


    Mid-day, Scatterer 0.0723:

      Reveal hidden contents


    You can see it's just a color issue, and may just need updated configs.

    I actually prefer the mid-day color of 0.0723. But the sunrise and sunset do look much better in 0.0632.

    I had the same problem with the same mods, Plus most of Near Future technology mods installed. Tried with all of most recent mods and scatter didn't work, defaulted to intergraded graphics. Changing graphic settings did nothing. Tried a totally new install and it didn't work either. However Reverting to 0.0632 scatterer fixed the problem. This isn't a bug report either, just a observation

  2. On 7/18/2021 at 12:48 PM, Dominiquini said:

    Found a bug:


    * Wrong message on stage recover fail: "Terminal velocity of 80.71) (less than 12 needed)"


    I agree with Starwaster, I see nothing wrong here. It seems you just had the SRB and a decoupler. You had no parachutes on it to slow down so it was moving at 80.71 m/s (terminal velocity) when it hit the ground. You need to add parachute(s) so the velocity is below 12

  3. 12 minutes ago, K^2 said:

    The problem with this kind of analysis is that most games on PC are GPU-bound. So having a 1660 Super is usually going to be the performance bottleneck on that build, and that's a pretty decent graphics card. So yeah, most games should run fine, and in terms of graphics, there's absolutely no reason I can see why KSP2 should struggle with it. You might have to set vegetation density one tick bellow maximum, if that's a tunable setting, or something like that.

    However, KSP was a very CPU-hungry game. KSP2 is expected to be much better optimized, but also has a lot more to do on CPU, so it's still almost certainly going to be limited by CPU performance for most people. And this is where things get complicated.

    Like I said earlier, the minimum spec I'm confident in having decent performance is PS5. Because if they can't get it to run well on PS5, they might as well just quit now. On paper, PS5 CPU has more than twice the performance of Ryzen 5 2400G. However, most of that comes from extra cores. In single thread performance, the difference is about 20%-25%. Which is still considerable, but if KSP2 is still mostly bound by single-thread performance and Intercept manages to optimize that thread's performance a little better than PS5 would need, then the 2400G might do just fine.

    tl;dr: That setup might be entirely fine for KSP2 - there is no glaring problem that would make me heavily doubt it - but there is no way to be certain at this point.

    Good news, though, is that even if your CPU can't handle KSP2, that's the only part that needs an upgrade. You currently have an AM4 socket motherboard, and that will easily take the aforementioned Ryzen 5 3600X, for example, or even something a bit more modern. Obviously, no need to rush for anything, and the best strategy is to just wait until the specs are announced and then consider if it's something worth upgrading over.

    The only thing about my PC that it was a pre built. So I got a pretty low poor motherboard as result ( ASRock > A320M-HDV )  I've already upgraded most parts of the PC already and I thinking the next time I upgrade it would  just be best to start new and build my own. Plus the whole shortage isn't helping anything either. If things get a bit choppy in KSP 2 it'll be fine as long its no worse than KSP 1.

  4. 48 minutes ago, tater said:


    Man I hope this actually happens in the future. Making Super Heavy and Starship even bigger and more powerful. One of the most exciting things (IMO)

    EDIT: Wonder if this 150 Ton reusable figure includes a possible stretch.


  5. 23 hours ago, The Doodling Astronaut said:


    So i'm curious, why did you guys go with vertical instead of horizontal?

    If i had to guess it looks more "modern' and "sci-fi" compared to regular turbines. Plus I think they're more efficient IRL


  6. 3 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

    And what do you do with an empty starship afterwards. Just leave the multi million dollar piece of equipment there or somehow ship it back over most likely uneven terrain under suboptimal circumstances.

    Unless they only launch it between very large military bases. It takes around 14 hours to fly from New York to Dubai (just some random example) If the US builds a launch and landing site in the middle east they could use that as a huge cargo hub and use fleets of helicopters to deliver the rest of the way. Still saving many hours in the process

  7. About Ingenuity's 4th flight  With Goals Met, NASA to Push Envelope With Ingenuity Mars Helicopter

    "Flight Four sets out to demonstrate the potential value of that aerial perspective. The flight test will begin with Ingenuity climbing to an altitude of 16 feet (5 meters) and then heading south, flying over rocks, sand ripples, and small impact craters for 276 feet (84 meters). As it flies, the rotorcraft will use its downward-looking navigation camera to collect images of the surface every 4 feet (1.2 meters) from that point until it travels a total of 436 feet (133 meters) downrange. Then, Ingenuity will go into a hover and take images with its color camera before heading back to Wright Brothers Field."

  • Create New...