shdwlrd

That was kind of what I was thinking for the MPL. But I would be agreeable for that type of usage for the MPL. You have to be aware of the power usage and such if you create something other that a basic craft, so that is no big deal. But the real killer is the amount of power that is required to send/relay data is ridiculous. Add to problem with transmitting science is that you can't continue where you left off it must be sent 100% at that moment to get credit for it. If were talking about the technology from the '40's and '50's I can understand it. But from the '60's on, there were ways to control the data flow and restart data transmission with little to no data overlap or loss. So the little underpowered probe, should be able to send your data in several chunks and get credit for it. I don't know if kerbalism handles data that way, but that mechanism should be stock. Yes, samples need to be returned to Kerbin or a colony for further processing and to get credit for it. Well, yes and no. You're right, science shouldn't be the sole method to unlock new tech. New tech should be unlocked by the amount of funds you can throw into the R&D and time, with science to open it up, or helping it out. Filling in missing info, for anything outside of the Kerbol system, that should be true. (Again, the Kerbol system should be well known when KSP2 is released.)

Science and career modes go together even though they can be played separately. But that's not the point of the thread. I agree, the science mechanic needs to be reworked and expanded upon. But how do you make it so it's not so much of a chore. Certain things need multiple observations to get a good picture of what's happening. Certain things just need time to complete. Experiments that requires player interaction needs to produce science even when the player doesn't interact with it. Science that requires multiple observations should slowly fill in the missing information and slowly give you science. The science that just takes time to complete, there's not much you can do but wait. The science that requires player interaction should sporadic produce science when the player isn't around. The MPL should be nerfed, and just used to run, and pre-process the experiments. (I'm assuming that it would be included in KSP2.) It shouldn't be used as a true lab. That needs to be done on Kerbin or a colony if in a different star system. Yes, it can produce science on its own, but very little.

Please in laymans terms, can you explain what you're trying to demonstrate between the different encoding functions, and the different results. (Non programmer here, I know you're timing compiling runs, but I don't know what you're trying to show with the results.)

No, I haven't tried any modded careers. It left that bad of an impression that I'm not willing to try it again, modded or not. I know that there are mods for KSP1 that change around the tech tree. But none of them are setup close enough to how I would like to see them. Since there's sandbox, I haven't deemed it worth my time to learn how to rearrange it. Honestly, if KSP didn't have a sandbox mode, I would have left it behind a long time ago. That's how bad I think Squad botched both the career and science modes. I sincerely hope that PD does something that represents a good, common sense progression through the technologies being presented in the game.

The point I failed to get across is that science should be used as either a catalyst for something to be researched, help speed up or complete research, or to fill in info gaps for unexplored planets. (I'm not including the Kerbol system, I'm making the assumption that it has been well explored at the beginning of KSP2.) Yes, I agree with you. Science needs a purpose outside of just unlocking the tech tree. If the R&D lab needs different materials tested in orbit to move along the current research. Ooo, something to do. You have to leave in orbit for a few month, so be it. You can do other things while waiting, or just speed up time. Yes, it could fall into that routine trap, but if you keep the routine experiments local to the SOI of the colonies, they could be setup or completely relatively quickly. Just to be fair, I don't play science or career modes. I hate how the tech tree is laid out. If the tech tree was laid out more sanely, I would actually try it.

Spore was fun while it lasted. But yeah, KSP isn't about discovering new life and conquering them.

I agree that there needs to be a reason to do all the science outside of just unlocking a tech tree. But to what extent should science equate to tech and to general knowledge? There needs to be science that contributes to general knowledge. But there also needs to be science that opens up different sections of the tech tree. And the tricky part is combining the two. A temperature readings from Kerbin's surface is useless in creating an ablative material strong enough to enter Eve's atmosphere. But temperature readings in orbit can lead to the need for better radiators. A surface sample can tell you about the regolith, but you might find traces of a material you need to open the another node of the tech tree. I can come up with other examples, but you should get the idea.

Probably most people think you mean alien fauna and sentient beings when alien life is mentioned on general?

From a non programmer perspective, XML sucks to look at and is difficult to edit without the proper software. Plain text is the easiest to deal with.

What's your opinion of near future? 5yrs? 25yrs? 50yrs? And for the rest of your statement, I feel the same as Bej Kerman.

No, I'm willing to wait. Maybe by the time it's released, I'll be willing to do more than site-seeing around Kerbin.

I can see alien microbes, and plants.

Nah, I use it all the time. The only times I've seen it flake out is when your plane is stalling and can't recover. (Which at that point, you shouldn't be using an auto-pilot anyways.) I do admit you do have to do some tuning for various conditions and craft though. BTW, can you tune the script to various different crafts?

The closest sci-fi tech I can see possibly being added is the Star Trek style impulse engine. It's basically a fusion engine with magnetic driver coils to increase the exhaust velocity. (I know, they say warp driver coils, but to keep the idea in the realm of plausibly, I'm saying magnetic driver coils.)

@Stone Blue is correct. I did mean Pilot Assistant. Crzyrndm did an excellent job explaining what the different values for PID do and how they work with each other.

One way to get me to actually use K-os. Real cool work, may I suggest looking at PA to see how the PIDs were implemented.

Thanks for clearing that up. So what @Brikoleur is arguing against is unexplained options or features that may break or change how the base game is played. Either include them or forget about them. I understand the programming and debugging time part of the argument. But at what point does an option/feature cross the line from optional to necessary?

Atmosphere heating, g forces, drag, relative gravity... These specific types of options are mentioned in the thread. They are "unnecessary" options to most players but are included in the game. You may call them debugging options, but they are options none the less. Now you need to define what options you are talking about. Are debugging options ok to have, but not options to turn off a feature?

Wow, this circular argument is hurting my head. Here is a practical example for having options within KSP. I built a lander and want to test it before launching it. I have a couple choices here, I can cheat it into orbit of the planet I want it to land on, or I can change Kerbin's properties to match the planet I want to land on. It's more convenient to change the properties of Kerbin to match the planet I want to land on. Not because of the revert function, because that's what quick saves are for, because if I need to make a change to the lander; I can hop back into the VAB make my change and just launch to continue testing. No cheating into orbit again, no risking after several times cheating the orbit things just breaking, little temptation for the Kraken to come around. (Unless that's your goal.) We wouldn't be able to do any of that without the options that are present in the game. The cheat orbit function wouldn't be in there. You wouldn't be able to change the planetary properties. Game play options are necessary in KSP if you don't want to go into a mission blind.

I can see someone taking that and making a carrier with the runways.

Real plume stock, cool. As long as the destruction vfx don't cause a noticeable stutter when its triggered, it would be cool.

Nah, AMD wants to be the leader in the mid-range GPU market. Understandable since that area of the market sells the most cards. I think it was created just to show off their new ray tracing processor. It's the next generation cards I'm interested in seeing. But thinking about @dave1904 problem, if KSP2 graphics are going to be close to Restock, (which they seem to be so far) people who are using older GPUs are going to have a rough time around the colonies and the mega interstellar ships. Even with well optimized graphics, reflections are hard on GPUs.

Why no 3,4,7,8?

So true, that's why so many AAA game studios keep rehashing the same idea repeatedly. (CoD & the Sims comes to mind.) It's the smaller independent studios that are making the (in my opinion) interesting games as of late.

@dave1904 It's all the shiny stuff that is killing your frame rates. It looks pretty, but too much in one spot, definitely a frame rate killer. I will have to admit, your GPU is probably the bottleneck here. But I did notice that your physics clock is yellow, is that normal for you?