Agost

Thank you. I'll figure out how to return them safely with DRE, but first... I need bigger engines. I hardly managed to put a single science lab in orbit with a skipper and 4 globe x2 boosters from KW. I wanted to add the zoology bay and some kibbal; 25t for the bay is ok, but 20t for the large kibbal storage... yes, that's kinda too difficult. The 2.5m kibbal container weighs almost as much as a thing many times bigger than it. Ok, the zoology bay is hollow inside, but it's still a lot larger. I agree with you about the whole challenge stuff, but kibbals are negatively OP in this way. If I were in you, I'd think about reducing a bit their density ( maybe 0.5x or 0.75x ) However, if Kibbals are made of the same materials all KSP celestial bodies are... they should even weigh more :asd:

You guys are awesome. Almost constant 100% on my i7 920, even on the HT virtual threads. Completely recached in less than 30 minutes. Second loading in about 2 minutes. Unfortunately the basic release doesn't seem as strong as the 4.0 version, since I was getting ~400 MB less at launch with it. I'll give the 4.2 version a try, but if there's a big memory leak I'll have to swith back to aggressive ( or tweak the basic one )

Will I have to recache if I update? ç_ç

Strangely enough, my loading time after the caching is actually longer than with 3.8 .-. However the Basic release looks a bit more "powerful" than before

2 hours... still going D: I should have used the nvidia tool...

Me wants multithread! However, did you try this release with EVE 7.4 ( the current one ) ?

So, is this release official or still in beta?

No problem. Sorry for you

False. Your TWR was 0.1, since 2000 N / ( 2000 kg * 9.81 m/s^2 ) = 2000 N/19620 N= 0.102 ( on Earth/Kerbin )

1) I don't personally know about this... but as long as you have enough lift/weight you will eventually take off. TWR>1 is needed ONLY for rockets, since they start going up vertically. Planes usually have TWR<1 (unless they're extremely powerful ) and they exploit their velocity to generate lift ( IRL it's because pressure differences generated by wing shape, in KSP is just generated by the angle of attack, at least in FAR ) 2) The exact craft you posted would probably never lift off or lift off and then crash in FAR. But this mod fortunately includes some very useful tools to verify if you plane will actually fly before bringing it on the runway

I brought Doodny to Minmus to get some science ( we need fairings! ) But his gloves got slippery, he fell off the crew cabin and he met the infamous Hell Kraken, unfortunately.

Can I use #20 for my signature?

Have you given them a try? I'm kinda new to KSP but I'd never play without FAR... stock aerodynamics just don't make sense

It's kinda strange that the orange tank didn't blow up... was is a mild aerobraking?

What's the point of that huge disk in the middle?

This might be caused by a bad installation, maybe missing files or wrong location

So, will I fulfil the contract by only transmitting?

Hi all! I have a question for you guys: when a StationScience contract wants you to run an experiment ( plant growing etc. ) and return the data, does it mean that you actually have to recover that vessel? I mean, do I have to deorbit the whole module and recover it at Kerbin, or can I just transmit the data/collect it with a Kerbal and go back to the ground?

Have you tried deleting and reinstalling all those mods?

Does it require DDSLoader? Moreover, what should I do with B9 ATM .cfg? Replace your stock one with that or just delete the one in BoulderCo?

It's because of Unity limitations, not squad's fault. It can use only 2 cores and, like you've been told, your cpu is quite old and Unity does not like AMD cpus very much. However, with that CPU you are limiting your GPU in many other games, trust me.

Do you use EVE/ Better atmosphere? How does disabling mipmaps affect these mods?

There is a HUGE gap between a 2500k and his athlon x4, even at stock speeds. Are you 100% sure your OC is stable and you're not getting thermal throttling? The only slowdowns I encounter are during ship/ksc loading and I have an i7 920 @ 3.67 GHz ( 3.8 on the first two cores with turbo), so much less ST performance compared to yours. I've always read that opengl on ksp runs slower but with less memory usage and no, opengl isn't always better in performance than dx in other games. DirectX are actually pretty good libraries, if used well

He's got an athlon x4, not x2. You CPU is very outdated and so are the "top" AM3+ FX CPUs ( they came out in 2012 ) AM3+ is a dead socket, AMD has no interest in it and it won't get any better CPU. If you have money, I'd consider switching to intel

Probably found the responsible for this issue. I've tried loading B9 turbofans only and they cause the issue both on launchpad and on the runway. http://imgur.com/a/AdtJ3#0 On the second screenshot you can clearly see the ship, in flight (?) with mach effects (??) over kerbin (???) and it's not moving (????). Moreover, there is no simmetry applied ( while I obviously applied it in the SPH ) Why this part is causing issues?? It is temporarily unlocked by a contract, could it be the cause?