G'th

When it comes to games like this or one of the Elder Scrolls games, I tend to play them in spurts depending one what mods are out or any new updates. Like, I'm playing it now because .24 is pretty much imminent. But later on I might stop playing and reinstall Skyrim to enjoy any new mods that have come out since I last played it.

Yeah that was the whole point when I bought this rig back whenever they first released the 580's. I just never got around to it. Might make that my project tonight. edit: 4 years ago. Lol wow, I am one lazy person xD Edit 2: Took a look at my GPU usage and holy crap. 20% load on average, but sub-20 FPS average. Yup, time to bite the bullet and overclock. Still getting a new card anyway (because I've been on the fence about it for months anyway) but yep, good to know where the issue appears to be.

My 2500k is actually water cooled.

What do you mean reusable!?!?!?

Been playing around with CSS. Really enjoying it so far and I hate that it took so long for me to finally get it.

When it comes to KSP, if you're in doubt, just add more of everything.

I really like that career mode is going to have a bit more of a drive to it now.

So I'm starting to get slowdowns in the game, even after using aggressive ATM and trimming down all of my mods to the bare essentials of what they provide (IE, only the stuff I actually use). Its really bugging me too because its stopping me from flying certain designs because I can't control anything through the tanked FPS. Now I either have to rely on simple designs that don't do much, but leave me with decent FPS or overly complicated designs that just dummy their way through the lag until I've dropped enough stages that the FPS comes back up. I'm looking at my graphics card first and foremost, as its really the only part of my rig that seems to lagging behind. My CPU (i5-2500k) which I haven't overclocked yet (even though I have more than adequate cooling to do it) should be perfectly fine so that just leaves me with my old 3gb 580. So, how much would upgrading to say, a 6gb 780 (I like having the extra VRAM for certain other heavily modded games) help with this issue? I realize the CPU plays a bigger part in FPS in KSP, but considering I like to pack in graphics mods (trimmed down of course) as well I imagine a new graphics card would be the best bet for right now (plus I really just need to overclock my i5 already).

^ Its been assumed that .24 will have Duna biomes, as that seems to be the trend with each whole number update providing a new biome since they introduced them.

Something I would recommend to save RAM would be to get rid of all the different fuel tanks mods introduce and just rely on Stretchy Tanks/Procedural parts. You might lose out on some aesthetic qualities, but what you save in RAM and gain in utility by sticking to procedural parts is really worthwhile. Anyway, for an awesome space shuttle, there's only one I can really recommend, and that's Component Space Shuttle, which is a replica of the whole shuttle stack. I recommend it mostly because it'll be easier to play with than a custom B9 based orbiter, but also because out of all the other pre-made shuttle mods, CSS is the only one that mostly plays nice with FAR (it also has a huge cargo bay, which is awesome). KSO, another great shuttle mod, doesn't play all that well with FAR as of yet. I'd also recommend getting Fustek Space Station parts as well as the Cacteye Space Telescope to give yourself some more things to build in space. And lastly, look into Rasterprop Monitor. Once you fly IVA with RPM, you'll never want to leave! If you decide to get it, pair it with Hullcam and possibly VesselViewer. It also integrates ScanSAT and Mechjeb functionality. It should also be noted that you can pick and chose which parts of NearFuture you want, as they all come as separate downloads on the forum page. I personally get the solar panels and trusses myself.

FAR makes the atmosphere realistic. IE, Kerbin's atmosphere is no longer a thick chunky gravy but more of a nice clear glass of water. The likely reason your rockets are spinning out of control is because you either A, have too heavy a hand at the controls, or B, have way too much TWR. For the former, turning on caps lock helps. But in general, you'll just have to get used to the fact that you can't just pitch over to horizontal from vertical and have the rocket stay stable. If you go too far past your prograde vector (IE, have a high angle of attack) you'll lose control of the rocket as it stalls. For the latter, you have to look at what your TWR is. If its above 2.0 you're going to have a bad time, as you'll hit high dynamic pressure (which basically means any major movement in your rocket will likely tear it apart or send it spiraling out of the sky) before you're even past the 10km mark. Sitting on the pad, you want it to be around 1.3-1.4. Idealing speaking, you'd want to keep it around that point for the entire flight, but once your past ~25km up you can go 100% throttle without it affecting your rocket much. Seeing as you're trying for missiles, you'll have to take both issues into account. It'll take some good piloting to make it work (as well as a well designed missile for that matter) and careful control of your TWR and speed, as losing control of either before reaching your target will spell disaster. Unless you use mostly reaction wheels in your design, you'll definitely need some sort of fins for maneuverability (you can get Procedural Wings for <1.25m designs). Using an engine that can gimbal will also help. And naturally, you'll also want to cut down on any junk along the missile itself. Anything sticking out that isn't fins will induce more drag which will make your missile less aerodynamic, and thus, harder to use.

Low Kerbin Orbit (LKO) is always a standard, and that's normally considered anywhere from 70km to 100km, and its where most people park before going off to the Mun or elsewhere. The reason for this is because at those altitudes, the Oberth Effect will have the strongest effect on your craft, and if you can time your burn to be as close to your periapse as possible, you'll save a bit of Delta-V during the burn. When going to one of the Mun's it doesn't make that much of a difference, but there's no reason not to take advantage of it anyway. EDIT: Ah, you may have been talking about Mun orbit. Personally, I prefer a 50km orbit myself, but this is because I'm still practicing rendezvous so I need that kind of wiggle room.

Thats the challenge of career mode. You have to make due with less.

I really cannot believe how many cynics are here. I mean, its one thing to be concerned about possible hostile species, as that's something we'll inevitably have to deal with when we start discovering intelligent extraterrestrial life, but its another entirely to just presume that just because Earth isn't a utopia that every other species in the galaxy will be even worse. There's literally no basis for that at all except irrational fear. And regardless, if a species has the capability to cross the void and not only invade but conquer a planet and integrate it into a vast, possibly galactic empire, that species will also likely have very little need for natural resources, whether its because they can use what they have far more efficiently or because they're synthetics are superior. So that's one reason to conquer us that goes completely out the window. If such a species finds us, they'll also likely ask us to join their empire before they decide that invasion is necessary. Subjugation by force is the worse thing an empire can do, regardless of whether its technologically superior or not, because eventually someone you subjugated will rise up against you, or become such a drain that maintaining a presence there would hurt the empire as a whole. And it wouldn't be stopped by technological superiority either, because an empire like that would inevitably have their own technology within arms reach of the subjugated, and that tech would be the first target. And sure you can say "oh well they'll just supernuke us from orbit blah blah" but what benefit would that be to them? No empire conquers territory just to have territory. Destroying a part of their territory would be the last thing they'd want to do.

I personally hold out for our particular area of the galaxy being relatively barren. From what I understand about the ideas around abiogenesis, it doesn't seem right that life should necessarily be that rare, be it intelligent or otherwise. And I don't think any species who reaches a similar level of intelligence to ours would end up wiping themselves out. We didn't, and it wasn't luck that did it either (no one wanted to press the button in 1962. Those who did were the extreme minority). Perhaps if the species in question was a lot more naturally aggressive than we are, sure. But just presuming that every other species in the universe is automatically going to be more aggressive than we are (that isn't even fair really) isn't right. If anything, such a species that had the capacity to achieve the sort of things we have/can but destroyed themselves would be the rarer variety. Self-preservation can't possibly be a trait unique to Earth. Also, I wouldn't say that our extinct Homo brethren necessarily "failed". Evolutionary progress isn't failure.

The easiest thing to do is to just send an unmanned mission with your life support supplies for the mission itself plus the return journey (plus any other extra bits and bobs I might want to send ahead) ahead of your main mission. The forward probe will drastically cut down on what all you have to fit into your main craft(s). And not only that, it'll make it easier in general to just design every component when you don't have to accommodate large amounts of bulk mass and instead can move almost all of that mass into one, simple, bulk payload. Designing things to be all in one is okay, but if its making harder to execute the mission, there's no real shame in breaking up the components.

Yeah but I was thinking more along the lines of NASA shutting down for investigation and possible redesign, like they did with Columbia and Challenger. Congress nixing the budget altogether is a whole other bag of worms. If SLS fails (and Congress isn't fazed) it'll just be similar to when they were testing the first rockets. It'll blow up, they'll try again after they fix the problem(s).

I doubt that actually, mostly because the first several SLS launches won't be manned. Regardless of what public outcry might arise due to SLS failing at first, they aren't going to shut down the program just because they lost an unmanned rocket.

Unless they decide to launch from some super remote location, I don't think that any of us here on Merritt Island are not going to notice the largest rocket since the Saturn V exploding during launch or otherwise failing somehow.

Found another good one of the External tank and the SRB's. It was really something else to stand under it.

It was pretty amazing, even what with living less than 20 minutes away from the center. Something that really struck me about seeing all of these rockets, the shuttle, and especially the Saturn V itself, is just how big they all were. On TV and in pictures you never really get the sense of how large all these things were. Especially with the shuttle. When the display screen lifted up and I saw Atlantis for the first time up close, I almost immediately realized that my mental image of the shuttle was about 3x smaller than it actually was. And even with the Saturn V it was something that hits you like a brick wall. It was really something else. Here's some selected pictures I took. Theres quite a bit more but because I didn't think to bring my higher quality camera (these were all iPhone pictures) they didn't all come out right. I'm really kicking myself too because there was a really good place under Atlantis where you could really see the heat tiles up close but in the picture all you can see is black. In reality, I could make out streaks from where the reentry heat flowed. And here's one of me where you can see the front end of the cargo bay for the shuttle.

Does the size of the AD matter? Like, is the 1.25 meter version any less powerful or anything like that?

I would say your wheel configuration has something to do with it. You don't need it angled that much, especially for a plane that small. You also have a canard on your tail. Those don't really go there, so you're trying to fly without any real yaw control. Its possible that its causing your plane to veer a bit on takeoff.

Transporter psychosis depends on the uncertainty of whether the stream of consciousness is broken or not. If it is broken (ie, its like going to sleep), then this leads to the very likely possibility that re-materialization is more like cloning rather than actual reconstruction (this is where people get hung up, I think). But if it stays unbroken throughout the process (IE, the subject is aware throughout the entire process of what is happening to them) then the being that comes out the other end is the same one that disappeared at the other. Without the ability to ensure a conscious and self-aware "brain", if you will, throughout the transportation process, we simply cannot say that de-materialization based transportation is truly safe. This is necessary because that is the only away to test whether or not "death" actually occurred during de-materialization. Even in Star Trek this is how it works (even with its flip-flop science). The transported are, in fact, fully aware as they are being transported, and can even break the stream physically.

I'm presuming you're using FAR, because otherwise planes are dumb. I'm also presuming you're using either RAPIER-type engines or a jet engine/rocket engine combo. Anyway, for the jet stage, don't worry too much about how much fuel/deltaV you pack into it. Even with non-overpowered jet engines, the fuel you'll be consuming compared to your rocket stage is miniscule. What really matters with your jet stage is TWR. A high TWR (but not too high, as FAR will tear your plane apart) will get you up to orbital velocity (OV) much faster and generally more efficiently, and it will save you some fuel for getting into orbit, as you'll be going faster and higher when the time comes to switch to rockets. Generally you should carry enough to get you up to your rocket stage, and then ensure you'll have enough reserve in case you need to use powered flight when you come back down for landing. For the rocket stage, fuel is extremely important. You need to ensure that by the time you switch to rockets, you have the dV to not only get up to your final desired orbit, but to circularize and then carry out whatever your mission is. You'll also need to consider deorbit. In my planes, a deltaV of ~2700 in my rocket stage (TWR, 1.2-1.4) usually leaves me with anywhere from 900-1200 dV leftover to do whatever I want once in orbit. Another thing you want to look at with FAR installed is drag. You want your plane to be as streamlined as you can make it. Unlike normal spacecraft, its not that good of an idea to have too many bits and bobs stuck on the sides of your plane. Now, as far as your ascent goes, the rule of thumb is after take off is to get up to ~ 10km altitude. Then, level off at a very low ascent angle (5-10 degrees above the horizon) and just gun it towards your desired inclination. At approximately 20km up, you should be going hypersonic and your engines should start losing thrust. This is when you want to switch to rockets. You can experiment here where exactly to switch to rockets, but if you let one of your jet engines flame out (and they're not set up to compensate for it) you'll have a bad time. Once you switch to rockets, you need to pull up to ~45 degrees and wait until your apoapsis hits your desired orbit, where you cut your engines and coast, just like a normal rocket. As I mentioned, if you let one of your jet engines flame out (it isn't an issue if you only have one jet engine), you could run into problems if they're not set up to compensate. This is because one engine will flameout and throw off your center of thrust causing you to spin out. How to compensate for this is to have an odd number of engines and place them from the farthest points moving inwards to the center, with your last engine right in the center where you need your COT to be. Then, when your engines flameout, they'll flame out from the outside in, maintaining your COT. So, say you want three jet engines. You'd place two of them in 2x symmetry, and then place the third engine right in between them where your COT needs to be.