_Aramchek_

None of that sounds good, there isn't anything "real" about the first and I've no interest in only building light planes. Are they going to fix this mess at some point? I really hope so, because for now the solution for me would seem to be going back to a previous version if those are the only workarounds. Which is also less than ideal. I have to wonder why they decided the "new" landing gear were a good idea and ready for the full release of the game.

I have no idea why they no longer work at all, but it's kind of ridiculous, they worked fine previously and now getting a plane down the runway is nearly impossible.

They all die equally.

No, due to a bad decision from the devs.

It makes more sense than the excuses being thrown around...and we all know PR companies never lie or stretch the truth...right?

Which they can still do without this pre-release, again, that information isn't tied to this pre-release in any way. Squad did not have to pre-release 1.1 to access that information/demographics. Someone on FB summed this up perfectly.... I paid to back this game and to bug test it, yet I and the other original backers either have to migrate to steam and it's downsides for this game, or we do not get to participate. That seems to be exceptionally out of line with the promises made when I and other original backers put money down so you people can enjoy the game in the first place.

Circular logic doesn't really work. The details of users pc's hasn't changed due to the pre-release, squad already knows what hardware people are running and has for a long time, having that data is not in any way directly tied in to bug testing 1.1.

Squad already has access to that data without the pre-release, so there is no reason to tie this release to that.

I haven't ignored any facts, I discredit your assumptions. There is a difference, someone summed it up nicely on the last page...this is a pr move that has very little to do with bug testing or bandwidth issues.

Anything under 30fps average is generally unacceptable to me.

Only sometimes, the new forum layout is atrocious and has stifled my interest in reading the forums.

If that were even remotely true then we would have stuck to the model Squad has been using for years, this is not "for squad", this is most definitely a pre-release for those who have steam...do not kid yourself. Also, if it were indeed about just getting the most play testers possible then everyone would have access, not just those on steam.....stop making excuses for a company.

There doesn't seem to have been any critical thinking involved either.

Doesn't fix the current problem, the current problem is that many people who supported the game are getting screwed over, I don't want to migrate to Steam even though I could. This pre-release should have been for everyone, or no one...not just the people who have the game on steam.

The second gpu just handles hardware physx.

The quoting system in the new boards sucks....anyway My highest temp is right around 60c, while benchmarking with 3dmark.

I wanna put my specs in too! 3570k@ 4.6ghz Asrock extreme6 Corsair h100i 16gb's ram 2x 240 gb ocz ssd's 2x 1tb WD black spinny drives 970gtx ssc I may be upgrading to either a 6700k/6600k or a 5820k soon though...I just have to decide if the slight improvement is worth the cash..or if I'd rather dump it in to my jeep.

1. Ivy Bridge OC's more or less as well as any other recent cpu family from Intel, I'm posting this from a 3570k that has ran oc'd to 4.5-4.6ghz from day one when I bought it years ago and is within a few degrees of any other modern intel cpu running under similar circumstances. It doesn't hit Sandy's 5ghz as easily, but those 5-5+ghz oc's were never typical, 4.2-4.8 is more typical and on top of that overclocking is ALWAYS a "lottery" of sorts, you may be lucky and hit it big, or get something that won't oc at all or very little..there is no way to tell at all by cpu family/etc. 2. SSD's are not the be all end all, especially for KSP, and in fact SSD's only get you any performance increase at all when loading games/reading the hd, otherwise they do nothing and are only a background upgrade at best. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3aYATWwo0 SSD's do pretty much nothing for ksp, and in game fps is completely unchanged. 3. This is a common misconception, and while it isn't as important, there was definitely a performance increase to be had going from a 560 ti, to a 670 gtx then further performance increases were had by going from the 670 to a 970, and while it wasn't tremendous, it certainly brought the minimum fps up..and if you game much you know why minimum fps is more important than average fps. *edit, to the op, if you do rendering etc, you should get a 5820k instead, you should be able to make a complete quad channel/x99system comparable to the one in the original post for about $10 more and it will do pretty much as well in gaming, but be a lot better for rendering/coding/encoding/etc.

[quote name='CliftonM']KSP only uses one core...[/QUOTE] Uh huh. which is why ipc per core is important, and each generation of Intel's architecture improves by about 10-15%. And most serious pc gamers overclock.

[quote name='Lilleman'] out how recent gaming rigs are useless to improve graphical aspect or framerate.[/QUOTE] DSR and yes, in fact newer, purpose made gaming pc's do in fact speed things up..as can/will a new gpu..even if KSP can run ok on middling hardware..you get better performance on newer gpu's etc. Just go intel, seriously, AMD cpu's are pretty weak in ipc comparatively and as a result do not run the game nearly as well. I would say U5, even if it does offer a performance increase, won't do so for older hardware by much if at all. Older hardware goes obsolete, always has, always will.

Win 10 works just fine..you guys act like updates haven't always at times reverted settings to default..which is just wrong.

[quote name='MegaUZI']This build seems correct, however I suggest replacing the AMD CPU by an Intel one, they are more expensive but they are way better for KSP. Also your GPU is completely overpowered for KSP, but it's a really good bet if you are planning to play other games, so keep it ;)[/QUOTE] It's a bit of myth that KSP won't fully leverage faster gpu's tbh. While a 750 will be able to max out details and run ok, I noticed a solid framerate increase going from a 560ti to a 670gtx, and then again when I went to a 970gtx. So, no, no gpu is really "overkill" for KSP, however budget cards can and will run the game fairly well.

I just noticed this...what? lol I only drop below 60 fps on big ships or instances of several larger ships being in physics range.

This, this is good advice,the i3 will run the game much better than the AMD cpu you've chosen, just choose a cheap-ish mb for intel platform to go with it and you're good to go.

Take a look in the following thread. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database