cantab

Add more struts and more reaction wheels.

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/override-the-4gb-memory-barrier-on-32-bit-windows-81-systems/ Though it's decreasingly important now that 64-bit Windows is fairly readily available, it still annoys me that MS crippled 32 bit desktop Windows by removing PAE support. PAE doesn't let individual programs use more memory, so you'll still need to watch your parts on KSP, but it means you can leave Firefox open without worrying.

I sit in a plane cockpit and laugh at mechjeb. I then trap the next poster in a thousand part ship in a copy of KSP running on a Pentium 1.

Thanks for the advice Camacha. Maybe I'll go for the 512 GB version of the MX100 SSD. Works out the same per GB and better to have too much space than too little. And am I right in thinking that higher-capacity SSDs have some performance benefits over lower-capacity ones? I would think about getting a Z series motherboard though. True, you'll pay a fair bit more for even the cheaper Z97/87 boards, but it'll mean you can upgrade in future to a k-series CPU and overclock.

In stock, the workaround is to launch, go to map view, and click the i icon on the right and you'll see the basic ship stats. Then revert to the VAB/SPH of course. Modswise, besides KER and Mechjeb there's VOID. I don't find it as useful as KER in the VAB as it only shows the dV for the bottom stage and the total not every stage, but in-flight I favour VOID since it has a HUD, including biome/situation info for sciencing, and doesn't need a part on the ship.

It's a huge task. Working out part performance is going to require some serious simulation. If you were just talking about one type of part it might be achievable, but for everything? You're practically building a Reality Simulator.

Two questions: Should I wait for DDR4? Would a Crucial MX100 256GB be a good pick for an SSD? Some background. My current PC: Made 2010. Phenom II X3 710 @ 3.18 GHz. (Stock is 2.6, and I can probably OC further.) 4 GB DDR2. Nvidia GT610. 1 TB and 500 GB hard drives. It's that DDR2 that's the nub here. DDR3 was current when I made the PC, but I ended up with the older standard, and with only two slots on the mobo that's limited the RAM to 4 GB. Technically 8 might be possible, but ridiculously expensive. That "dead end" in terms of upgrade potential has become a problem, and my concern is that if I get a new PC using DD3 now I'll end up in the same situation a few years down the line. On the other hand, I'm a bit worried I might be waiting a while. Intel's "enthusiast" processors will probably be pricier than I'd like, so if I want to wait for DDR4 I'll have to wait for it to come to the "regular" motherboards (ie along the lines of current Z97) and CPUs. I can at least get components that aren't affected by motherboard/CPU/RAM choice now, and use them in my current PC then transfer them to my future one. For example My thinking is I'll split it four ways. 64 gigs for Linux (my main OS), 64 for a Windows install, 64 used as cache for mechanical hard drives, and 64 left for future expansion. Does this sound a reasonable idea and is the drive mentioned a good pick for that? (And yes, I know that for gaming I should upgrade that graphics card, but since KSP's all I've played I'll do the drive first.)

My processor, an AMD Phenom II X3 710, was hitting over 100 °C under heavy load and shutting the PC down. I brought the temperature down to 50 °C max just by giving the PC a good cleanout with some canned air, making sure I got right into the CPU cooler and everywhere else. If you've not cleaned your PC in a while (or ever), do this first.

I wonder what Kerbodyne think of the discovery their engine has inherent antigravity I think I would have simply stuck the test engine upside-down on top, and capsules could go on the side with the aid of girders.

I'd like to see the capacitor bank that can sustain 200 megawatts for the duration of a rocket launch.

Flying out some .23.5 missions. Have a return vessel that was out of fuel with around a 54 km Kerbin periapsis, so that's gonna be making quite a few aerobraking passes. A course correction for one of my small probes that are meant to gravity-assist their way all over the solar system. And some asteroid shoving around. I'm thinking I might actually take a break from KSP once I've finished these projects. Sacrilege I know with the .24 hypetrain, but I have played a lot over the past few months. Plus it means I can postpone my new PC build

Even in the real world, while satellites in low Earth orbit may have their orbits decay rapidly, those in higher orbits will take much longer to come down. For example the LAGEOS satellites, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAGEOS , will stay in orbit for several million years.

That's what the spooks would like you believe. There's every chance "they" know ways to significantly weaken the code that aren't public. Then there's the approach of attacking aspects of the implementation rather than the "core" algorithm. For example the NSA during the noughties promoted a random number generator for use in encryption software that potentially (and IMHO almost certainly) had a backdoor that allows the NSA to predict its output and thereby break encryption that uses it. More recently you may have heard of the Heartbleed vulnerability; while there's no reason to think that was a deliberate backdoor it's quite likely it was being exploited by some group or other before it was made public,

Attempted to make an upper stage deorbit itself when it lacked a probe core. I did this by gently throttling the engines, then quickly undocking the payload and having it RCS thrust to the side. Unfortunately it didn't work out. The payload dragged on the rocket stage as it got clear, and in doing so it put a rotation on the spent stage. So instead of deorbiting it just did a few big lazy circles. I was glad it didn't hit either the payload or the ship I was docking to.

For the smaller mirrors and lenses, I believe http://www.surplusshed.com/ are good in the USA. For example they have 114/900 primary mirrors for 30 bucks.

You need to line up the finder with the main scope. This is best done in the day. With the lowest magnification eyepiece, point the main scope at a distant object, something like a tree or power pylon. Lock the main scope's motion if you can, then tweak the finder's adjustment so it's over the same distant object. Repeat the process with a higher magnification eyepiece for more precision. Most stars aren't very interesting to look at. They'll still look like stars, just brighter. Some are doubles though, they can be nice to see especially if there's a colour contrast. Albireo, for example, which is the southern bright star in Cygnus.

OK let's say you've got a Pentium and an i5, both with the same CPU architecture (Haswell, for argument's same) and both at the same clock speed. The Pentium has two cores, the i5 has four, and neither have hyperthreading. There are a few other differences but they're relatively minor. If you are running a single program that's not been designed to use multiple cores (ie is "single threaded"), and its performance is limited by the CPU (and not the graphics card, the hard drive, or anything else) both processors will do about the same. If you are running a single program that has been ideally designed to use multiple cores (ie is "multi threaded"), it will run about twice as fast on the i5 as on the Pentium. If you are running three or more programs, even if they're individually not designed to use multiple cores, then you may get better performance from the i5 than the Pentium. As for hyperthreading, well think of it as adding an extra "half-core" to each regular core. An i3 has two cores with hyperthreading (and most i7 are four cores with hyperthreading). Running a program or combination of programs that uses three or more cores, the i3 will do somewhat better than an equally-clocked Pentium but somewhat more worse than an equally-clocked i5. *** Now, let's talk about your system. Benchmarks aren't the be-all and end-all of performance but they're a good start. This is your processor: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q8400+%40+2.66GHz&id=1041 When it comes to Kerbal Space Program, at the moment it's not well designed to use multiple cores, 90% of the work has to be done by one core. So it's that "single thread rating" you need to look at for KSP. Your current processor is about as good as anything you'll get that fits in the same CPU socket in this respect. If you have a good motherboard (and with that chip you probably do) you can try overclocking it, which will probably bring you a 20 to 40 percent speed boost. If you do go for overclocking there are plenty of guides around, but make your first step giving your PC a good clean-out with some canned air so that its cooling is running at top performance. As regards a new PC, I suggest one with the Pentium G3258 "Anniversary Edition" and a motherboard using the Z97 chipset. That particular Pentium is "unlocked" which helps for overclocking; the Z97 motherboards are also best for that. Even at stock speeds it will be about twice as fast on single-thread speed, which is what matters for KSP, and equal or better with your current processor on multi-threaded speed. Overclock it and it'll play KSP as well as anything and do a fine job on most modern games. A complete budget gaming system will probably run £500-600, I can't speak for prices in Poland. If you want to keep the cost down you could just get a new motherboard, processor, and memory, and maybe CPU cooler, that'll cost you about £200 or so. You may need to buy a new copy of Windows (because "OEM" copies aren't valid if you upgrade the motherboard), so another £100 for that, or alternatively install Linux.

I think the most practical option would be to make ships with varying amounts of delta-V, fly them straight up at roughly optimal speed either manually or with MechJeb, and note down the figures of interest. Then just use that to make a lookup table, and interpolate if need be.

Well, the other way would be if Unity made changes to better support the kind of very large worlds KSP uses. While I wouldn't say it's likely, I don't think it's out of the question: space games in general aren't unpopular and being able to claim the engine will handle worlds THIS big would be something Unity could promote as a feature.

This is perfectly sensible. The Kerbal States' Navy was looking for a potential new ultra-stealthy way to propel its submarines so they can sneak past the Kerbiet defences if and when the call to nuke Moskow arrives.

Too easy to find to be a true "Easter Egg" I think.

Probably not. Modern computer systems are powerful enough to break Enigma even without the use of the "clues" as they had in the Second World War. I believe the key length for the German military enigma equates to 67 bits or so, which is way too short for a symmetric cipher nowadays. It has other weaknesses too.Meanwhile there are so many much stronger modern algorithms around to choose from. On a final note, one of the reasons the Enigma cryptanalysis was kept secret for so long was so the British could market Enigma to foreigners, knowing they could break the messages thus sent. Something perhaps we should bear in mind today when using algorithms the NSA has been involved in developing.

For my Moho ship (which actually never went to Moho, just the Mun) I put the rover on the side of the lander, and the lander went up in a stock fairing below the CSM. I then found out the hard way that you should set the parking brake before decoupling the rover. Pic: https://flic.kr/p/ntRijg Unless you have a fast CPU, I suggest using mods for fairings though. Stock fairings really spike the part count. For Duna I opted to build a lander-rover that simply touches down on its wheels. It was quite tough to build in enough delta-V for the ascent, but that would be made much easier by having a separate ascent stage instead of lifting the whole thing. For launch I just stuck a pair of them on the sides of a big rocket, no fairings. Pic: https://flic.kr/p/nFyDW1

This is a Hohmann transfer, which is generally the most fuel-efficient transfer without using gravity assists. As you can see it leaves the starting orbit, goes round the primary to the other side (thus completing half of the transfer orbit), and enters the target orbit. For interplanetary travel, you want the target planet to be there when you reach its orbit, and that means you need to leave at the right time. There's some leeway before you get a noticeable impact, so that's your transfer window. If you leave at another time you'll have to take a different transfer orbit that costs more fuel to reach. (Or spend several orbits round the Sun waiting for your encounter.) In real life spacecraft can't always hang around waiting in LEO forever, so you can get a launch window based on the transfer window. In stock KSP that's not an issue.

I launched a spessboat. Emphasis on the "boat". Now just need to bring the orbiter modules and crew up and then send it off to Laythe. Where hopefully I'll be able to land it without capsizing, as happened on my last test.