cantab

For reference, if you don't want the regular paragraph spacing you get when hitting enter Hitting Shift+Enter will make a line break without starting a new paragraph and that gives a smaller space (That works in MS Word too)

Unlike the rest of the forums, the Gameplay Questions section has been switched to a Q&A format reminiscent of Yahoo Answers. It's one of the bigger changes and the less talked about ones, so I thought I'd ask what do people think about it? I reckon it's going to be a mixed bag. On the plus side, with any luck it will help focus people on answering the question and have less going way off topic like used to happen somewhat. Being able to choose a "best answer" might also make it a more useful ongoing resource. On the minus side, questions do spark fair and relevant discussion, the answer isn't always clear or something a single respondent can necessarily give immediately by themselves, and the new format may stymie that. I also don't like not seeing the date/time of the last post easily as is the case elsewhere. A note to the mods: I'd rather this thread stays here, or at least somewhere using the Q&A format, so that it can be self-demonstrating as it were.

My two cents is I'd rather see nothing if a user hasn't set an avatar. It looks a bit odd seeing those generic grey pictures everywhere.

Not much. Really I just want to see how posting images works in this new WYSI vaguely similar to WYG editor. Coleridge 2 perishes by cantab314, on Flickr Let me guess, what used to be a single quick copy-and-paste operation is now going to be a boatload of work. Wheeee, and for no obvious reason the image goes somewhere random NOT where my cursor was. ... wait, it went in the copy pasted BBCode. OK, what the? Also, trying to write or edit a post with images is now going to a complete PAIN IN THE REAR END. Bring back our BBCode.

Google will update, but other sites that link to the forums aren't going to change anything like as quickly. For a start you've immediately broken a whole bunch of links on another of Squad's "official" properties, Curse, including the first link in the description of the top mod. Then there's that Google considers the links pointing at a page in its rankings, so forum threads are almost certain to take a page ranking hit, meaning third-party sources are likely to show up above forum results in Google searches.

It's because it's designed with at least some thought towards touchscreen users. I frequent another forum where the design makes *no* concessions to touch and there's no different mobile version, and trying to use that on a phone is incredibly difficult and unpleasant. With the caveat that I haven't actually tried the new KSP forums on my phone yet, I think giving consideration to touchscreen users is the right thing to do, "wasted space" be darned.

They're the same as before aren't they? I didn't notice any changes, though for all I know Squad could have sneaked something in. I think it's just that as far as IPS is concerned it's the first time we've logged in. +1 to this. According to IPS https://community.invisionpower.com/topic/417407-ips-40-the-current-state-of-bbcode-and-its-future-is-bbcode-officially-abandoned/ "IPS4 supports BBCode and we have no intention to remove that in the foreseeable future". I can see how Squad would think a wysiwyg editor will attract newcomers, though I would note that people are now familiar with sites like Facebook that offer no formatting at all, but a lot of the existing membership prefer the BBCodes. Heck, just making that link behave required silly non-obvious workarounds, otherwise the rest of my post would have been treated as part of the URL after I pasted it. A task trivial in BBCode made idiotic in WYSIWYG.

I don't know the technical details and how much management they do, but right now I'd say the hosting isn't of an acceptable standard. I'm getting delays, timeouts, and 502 errors regularly.

I'm not convinced by a couple of the forum moves. I feel that pushing "Gameplay Questions and Tutorials" down will just result in more newcomers asking their questions in "General KSP Discussion", indeed I'd say there's a case for making Gameplay Questions one of the first forums listed. Burying "Welcome Aboard" seems like it will really discourage its use.

Am I seeing the same thread in two places? That's *really* confusing.

Ugh. This is a forum, not Twitbook. "Like", "Follow", "Status", and all that don't belong here IMHO. Also, seems like the warning/infraction system is misbehaving a bit. I'm being asked to "acknowledge" warnings from months ago, and it's saying I've got points when they expired months ago on the old forum's system. Yet another issue I find: Let's say at 12:30 I start writing a post. At 12:31 and 12:32 other posts are made in the thread. I get a notice saying "show 2 replies" or similar but ignore it for the moment, and then click to make my post. Once I see my post go through, I don't see the posts that were made before, I have to manually refresh the page for that. In my view this is really dodgy usability. Likewise, when I edit and save my edit it doesn't load up any other posts that might have followed.

As was mentioned before the upgrade, this is A Big Deal. Breaking every inbound link is very disruptive. It's disappointing this couldn't be resolved. I also had trouble with the "WYSIWYG" editor on my very first post, when attempting to trim my quote. Not great. And did I just here the forum make a noise? TURNITOFFTURNITOFFTURNITOFF! (I expect I can disable that in my own settings, gonna look now). EDIT: Also when I posted it just said "Saving" and seemed to hang, I had to manually refresh the page and then I got an error from nginx. I assume and expect that kind of thing will be worked out.

7 (-)

[quote name='Camacha']When it comes to servers, Microsoft is doing exactly this. Slowly but surely they are removing components, with the upcoming version allowing you to load only the components you need, controlling is all via PowerShell commands. Unfortunately, this is not a logical direction to take the consumer OS. People want more polish, not less, so it is unlikely that Microsoft will streamline you experience in such a fashion.[/QUOTE]MS actually do make Windows fairly streamlined. The problem is the system builders add the shovelware, frequently getting paid to put it on the PCs they sell people.

My two pence: [I]What SCANsat settings are ideal when using SCANsat alongside Orbital Science?[/I] - Whatever you like using with ScanSAT normally. As far as scansat use goes, DMagic just adds alternative scan parts really. [I]Could you please clarify the "Resource Biome Lock[/I] - In stock, the big ore scanner dish makes a crude map that reports the same concentration everywhere in a biome. To get a precise map you need to land a ship with the surface scanner instrument and use that. Using it at one point in a biome makes the map show precise concentrations at every point in that biome. Now the ScanSAT "resource biome lock" option retains that behaviour for scansat maps. Turning it off makes scansat maps show precise concentrations everywhere. Really I'd say what to do depends on whether you want to keep the stock behaviour (but benefit from ScanSAT's map interface and so on) or want to completely replace it with a different approach to resource scanning.

[quote name='EuSouONumero345']Cantab also didn't say.[/QUOTE] [quote name='cantab']Down to 2[/QUOTE]I think that's explicit enough.

There's no game mechanics reason for the science messages to agree in any way with the resource scanning system.

Chances are just getting rid of the junk will do a lot.

Down to 2

Don't trust the CoL ball, it's bugged in FAR. Check the static stability chart instead.

When it comes to CPUs performance gains have indeed slowed down in recent years. Moore's Law as originally formulated referred to transistor density and improvements there have slowed a little, but the bigger factor is difficulty translating that process shrinking into actual performance improvements in an application where "moar cores" isn't very helpful. I'd speculate that the lack of competition at the high end is a factor too - Intel could easily produce somewhat better chips at much better prices, but they don't need to. (For one example, the Broadwell desktop chips proved the benefits of a large amount of eDRAM acting as an L4 cache for the CPU, but Intel decided not to include that in any of their succeeding Skylake chips.) In other components and devices things are better. GPUs, which lend themselves to massively parallel designs and have strong competition between nVidia and AMD, advance apace. Storage is doing pretty well too I think for both speed and capacity.

Unless you wait until 1.1 - which may mean not starting the mission until February - or use Linux you'll probably have to add and remove planet packs. That will mean some finagling with the save file, but it should be possible.

Likewise, it's my usual starting point for three reasons. It's easy to search. It's comprehensive, covering virtually every CPU (and GPUs on its sister site). And its scoring is linear, so a 5000 is twice the performance of a 2500. It is just a starting point though, and is a synthetic benchmark, so it's worth also finding some real-world tests. EDIT: And oh yeah, it should be [url]https://www.cpubenchmark.net/[/url]

-3 - .

[quote name='DarthVader']I'm not talking about Grasshopper (which made it to atleast 1km, not 2 feet) I'm talking about the sub orbital tests after S1 separation conducted on Cassiopie, Orb2, DSCOVR,Crs-4, Crs-5 and CRS-6, all of which did precision landings on a surface.[/QUOTE]Precision crashing does not count. SpaceX have come close, but close doesn't let them re-use the booster.