XOIIO

Glad to hear it, I tried it out anyways and it seems to be working great, and for me it certainly was like magic lol. I've got a pretty beefy computer, but even a 300 part ship was really causing issues, thankfully now it's actually going pretty good. Unfortunately things have a bit of issue snapping to welded objects, so if yo have fuel lines connected to something structural like I did (I'll post a picture in a bit), if you welded with the fuel lines on, they go all over, and if the part you connect too is welded on, they don't snap properly either, but that's understandable. It still made a huge difference.

Not sure if this is still working, but sadly, even with ksp 1.1, I am getting terrible framerates around a mediocre sized station, and it's not even half done. I'll have to trash it and use hyperedit to put the new one in, after I use the parts welder. Not sure if it's working very well in 1.1, but my main question is, if the mod breaks, or support discontinues, will welded ships still work or will they be useless/broken when an update rolls around?

Yeah, I picked them at random, and then turned them on, and excrements I fell in love with the look lol. Rapiers sound and look worse, and also blow up the control surfaces. I didn't know those thud engines were strictly liquid fuel, they might work well in between the wintips, I thought that they needed some filler. Those might be just what I need.

Yeah, I would have much preferred a desktop, I've always stood by the fact that if you take the cost of a laptop you can build a better desktop, but the way I got this meant that I needed to get a laptop (and they originally quoted a business oriented one worth about $500 with $1500 worth of software that would have been utterly useless) I think this thing's cooling system could handle overclocking quite easily, but I'm not sure if many people have overclocked these. I guess I'll have to use a parts welder if my next station attempts will be problematic, though I'd much rather not use the mod. My main issue with mods like that is that if they don't get updated or development stops, it could cause issues, the stations or ships might end up corrupted or something, I'm not sure how they go about it, but it seems merging the parts together would mean it's critical for the mod to always be there from that point.

Yeah, I have the laptop set for high performance all the time, and plugged in 90% of the time, I can run much more cpu intensive games and high framerates, I guess ksp is just limited by the physics engine for now.

Oh really? I figured part count performance would have increased if anything.

Yeah, it's just incredibly disappointing that it can't as it is right now.

This thread is full of people with massive ships, how the hell are they getting to 1600 parts when I can't even get above 10fps with 345 parts, and my system is barely being used? (multithreading or not) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/83863-when-have-you-over-done-it-with-the-part-count/

No luck with large address aware, didn't change anything. Same with turning off vsync to possible give it a bit more wiggle room, unfortunately it wasn't that simple. It's extremely frustrating though, I just don't get how people make ships with 800+ parts and not using a weld mod when I can't even get to 400 without severe framerate issues. It's also pretty disappointing that unless someone chimes in with some magic solution it seems, I'd have to use a mod to be able to do this.

KSP is still single threaded? I thought they were going to multi threading as part of the full release? That 25% usage shows across all cores, I figured it was by now. And it's definitely on the proper graphics card, this computer actually only has the 970m (no cruddy intel cpu graphics thank god, as far as I can tell). I'm also only running the game at 1080p I still find it odd though as you see people build ridiculously massive ships, things that I have attempted only to get a couple fps on my previous system. I was hoping to be able to finally build some 800 part monsters or giant stations but at this rate I still won't be able to, which doesn't make much sense unless those people are running KSP on nasa's computers. Is there any sort of timeframe on the next patch?

Hello, so this is an interesting issue which I can't seem to figure out. When I got a new computer (used to playing on a core 2 quad) I was looking forward to being able to make much larger vehicles and space stations without dropping down to a slideshow in their vicinity, however, on my new machine, I have not had much more luck at all. I had a vessel with only 345 parts, a ship that made a trip to ike, launched and met with a lander, and made it back to kerbin to rendezvous with a crew retrieval craft successfully. However for even longer missions that would require many more parts. The issue is that it dropped me from the usual 60 fps I get (seems locked) on smaller vehicles, to below 10 fps when launching. What's strange is that my CPU usage is at around 25%, 47% ram usage (27% being used normally and when I have a web browser and a couple tasks open), and only around 30% of my gpu. I know that the brunt of ksp's resource needs are for processing the physics, so it would be cpu side, but that begs the question as to why ksp isn't pushing my system harder. It won't have any issues with cooling, even though it's a laptop, and has run things much more system intensive and taken it like a champ. I'm going to back up my saves and reinstall the game now to see if that changes anything, but I am wondering why KSP isn't using my system to it's potential. System info: Asus ROG G751jt CPU = Core i7 4710HQ 2.5ghz (turbo boost to 3.5ghz) Ram = 16gb 800 mh/z GPU = Geforce GTX 970m -3gb ram - 103 mh/z

Oh derp, I guess I am tired lol, not sure where i got 3000m/s from. Anyways here is the video, I'm taking a break for a bit, maybe going to sleep, not sure yet. I gave up because I wasn't hitting that target speed, but the couple other similar attempts when I did try I lost speed rapidly with minor altitude gain. https://youtu.be/ZAEGlBvnRcA

It's mostly going to be used for crew, but minimus would be a nice bonus. Anyways, I was able to get up to 1.2 km/s at 18km altitude, but then the RCS ports started taking heat damage, but I couldn't go much higher without thrust dropping quite a bit. This was a modification I made with two rapiers instead of the outer two whiplash engines. I'll try again with the whiplash engines, and I'll record my attempt to hopefully get pointers (though it will take a while to upload) I usually just use mechjeb for the a bit of the setup for docking and the final approach, just to get it right. helps a bit as a trainer too since I didn't do much docking before. I've found it not quite as bad as you mention (though I change the docking speed as you go if I do have it on full auto, leaving it at 5 m/s until the last bit). I've got 120 units of rcs fuel on this plane. Edit: and I think if I did move the smaller wings forward more I might have more luck keeping the nose up without additional sas modules, but I've had that sort of issue with all my ssto attempts, probably because I'm not getting high enough. On the latest attempt I couldn't get to 1500m/s even, let alone 3000m/s, not sure why, maybe I'm just going about it wrong. Video should be uploaded and good to view in 1080p in about 35 minutes or so. The audio is kind of crap since shadowplay doesn't record any bass when I use the laptop speakers. (works fine with headphones though, it's odd)

Yeah, that double wing is just for looks lol, I'm considering changing to an aerospike if I can't nail it with the nerv, but I really want to be able to pull this design off.

I actually haven't done two wings before, I just liked the look on this ship, and I've adjusted the plane design some, I added two more jets, removed some of the intakes (the radial ones), and added some sas modules, but was only able to aroumd 30km, with a speed of around 904m/s as my max. I want to go with an nerv engine so that I can use only liquid fuel and get a lot of range once in orbit, ideally to minimus and back without docking to refuel. My main limitation is what sort of ascent profile I should use, aside from just trying increase speed as I gain altitude, and balancing the two. I suppose if I had to change to something like the aerospike rocket I could change the precoolers to lf+o tanks but as I said, I really want to stick to the nerv if possible.

Alright so a couple things, mechjeb was set to manage the air intakes, meaning all but two were closed, I think that's because the jet engines used to have the highest thrust output with a low range of air, causing me to lose a lot of thrust, it was pretty easy to get up to 15km this time. I was able to get just under 30 peak, but don't think I was able to get up quite enough speed. I also wasn't able to go totally vertical, the cockpit just doesn't have enough torque to do it, and I don't think I was high enough. I usually stick an mk2 drone for the extra torque, but I'll add a couple sas modules hidden behind the engine and upload the new file (the link in the OP will work to get it) edit: It's much more stable and hold position better now, so I think the main issue is just me not knowing what sort of ascent profile I need. 900~m/s was my max) The jet certainly does look better with two more engines though.

Ah alright, so I guess now you really only need one intake per engine? Cool. I totally hadn't noticed the thrust to weight ratio. I was thinking of adding in a couple more jet engines anyways for looks since I have the room (and just move the rcs tanks that are under those nosecones), I'm guessing that will make a big improvement. I want to use the LV-N and pure LF tanks since I will have a lot more flexibility when it comes to maneuvering in orbit, and maybe even making single trips to minimus and the like, so oxidizer engines won't work very well, I think the extra jets should help though. I beleive in that image I had forgotten to remove the oxidizer from the mk2 to 1 adapter which would help. I'll boot the game up again and make the changes, and probably remove some intakes. edit: I removed the nosecones and placed them again and the thrust to weight ratio jumped to 1.65, I think that mechjeb just didn't update properly. I'm going to slap a couple engines on anyways though and see how she does then (which when removing the intakes from the side brings it up to 2.94

So, I've never been able to get into orbit with my SSTO's (so really they are just SS's I guess), but I have gotten in a few times, and while following the old (or at least what I recall) ascent profile, I couldn't get much above 20km. It's possible that this SSTO can't make it, but maybe I am just not doing it right. Perhaps I need some more intakes? (though from what I read apparently that doesn't do much anymore?) I was hoping maybe someone could give me some updated tips and test out my SSTO (didn't have any luck in the spacecraft exchange) https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1sc1gwqb8cmjqn/Nighthawk.craft?dl=0

A couple slight changes. Tried a couple times but couldn't make it to orbit.

Sorry about there being no images for a bit, couldn't embed them, then the imgur album wouldn't embed and I couldn't remove it, and now embedding works *shrugs*

Hey all, been a bit since I played KSP, and I decided to take a crack at making a spaceplane again, though with the aerodynamics changes I don't know if it will reach orbit. Anyways after failing to make a decent looking mk3 plane with lots of cargo room I decided to try making an mk2 plane to ferry people around, however since I've made some functional, but not very good looking planes in the past, I decided instead this time, I would turn off the com and col indicators and design one based just on looks, and fuel capacity. I think it turned out pretty good, and when I launched it, to my great surprise, it actually flies quite nicely. Turning left and right are a bit limited, due to my not wanting a vertical tailfin, but aside from that it's remarkably stable, I did check the com and col a couple times, but didn't really have to move anything to my surprise. So, I thought I'd get some opinions from you guys, and maybe someone who knows how to fly ssto's (I've only ever gotten into orbit three times, in previous ksp versions, it's probably way worse now) could give it a whirl and see how she does. So, I'd love to get some feedback on the design and the performance. Download the craft file here -> https://www.dropbox.com/s/w1sc1gwqb8cmjqn/Nighthawk.craft?dl=0 Future improvements will be some parachutes if you can't touch down somewhere flat, and an RTG for power once I unlock it.

Yeah they used to heat up instantly in the atmosphere though, whereas now they don;t, must be the heat model. It sucks that they have changed this though and that you need to have them on their own tanks, I used to do 3 on an orange tank as a pretty nice setup for interplanetary missions. At least now you don't need oxidizer.

It sounds like now LV-N's can only be run for a specific amount of time before they overheat and explode rather than before 1.0 when they would just get about 3/4 of the way there and stop? I also ran it on the launchpad for a full minute and it didn't heat up at all, I'm assuming due to the changes and the LV-N not having actual combustion taking place anymore? I'm going to miss that cherry red glow

I'd say it means no ground connection, probably not close enough or you actually have to be anchored using a grabbing unit. I haven't gotten to that point yet though.

Oh jeeze *palm* How did I not realize that lol. Well that's one thing fixed, maybe I'm also just being stupid about the RCS somehow. I feel they changed how it works now though maybe. Mechjeb can still use it for rotation and tilting, but I can't, it doesn't assist the SAS modules anymore.