Arugela

I honestly thought multiplayer was supposed to be in 1.1.

I was wondering the same thing. I turned it on for a large parts count ship and it did help a little. I only have an AMD CPU though. But I would love to know what it is supposed to do and when it is meant to be used.

I've seen several cases over the year where the motherboard side comes out of the case semi similar to that. I wish they would do that with more cases now. It's a very nice thing to have.

I have a feeling they dealt with alot of things by having the buttons not be clickable instead of coding the buttons not to work and when clicked and deal with the exceptions. Maybe it's just default behavior for the game as it doesn't have Ox+LF present?!(Or it's coded to only pop up when one or some of the default fuels are detected) It wouldn't be shocked if it does the same think on a mono only vehicle or even maybe just pure LF. Although Pure LF may trigger the button as it detects one of the Fuels and possibly has a handled exception for no ox but one fuel source needed. Or I wouldn't be surprised. I've noticed they make buttons just not show up in a lot of cases. Although I don't know specifically. I haven't tested anything. This just came to mind.

Or you could make sure you rendezvous in front of the craft or with the engines off. Kerbins poofing in EVA would be funny. compromises make the game simpler and more boring for everyone.

Got it up to 5k btw! 8) This could be interesting with smaller stuff if it scales to mass. Designed explosion could be cool. It would be a bit like designing heat limitation but with stuff blowing up! You could possibly do either single large explosions or design small ones to act like the Orion nuke drive on the way up. 8)

Anything and everything that optimizes the game and creates a proper bed for the rest. This needs to be done more than anything. It needs to be done to literally do the other things correctly. I would vote but I can't completely tell if any of those really refer to optimizations. And I would not vote for anything else before or until that is done. after that I'm with whatever makes the game more interesting like life support. And whatever gives us the ability to have it and things like it properly.

Having my LVN's do double work as electrical generators would be a dream. It would excuse the weight to no end. I could dump all of my little thermic generators and lighten up my vehicle a little and my parts count alot! They would make perfect mining vessels. All that extra electricity for RCS, drills, and ISRUs. If they do 5 electricity while outputting thrust how much would they do in electricity mode? Slow startups for LVNs would be fine too. It's easy to do on the runway or on the way up to orbit etc. It would add some character to launches too.

I have a very large high parts count ship with lots of things that can explode on it. I had part of the ship on the runway testing converters. I went full 4x time warp to see if it would speed it up wth the engines on. Longish story short, the bottom is not stable at 4x without it on the missing part of the ship(for testing purposes/parts count issue) and it pushed down on itself and stuff started exploding. Next thing I knew I saw the center of the vehicle still alive and though I would watch it explode for fun after the more superficial stuff stopped blowing up. Then I see it moving upwards...... It kept moving upwards and is still moving upwards. I'm waiting to get a max height on it actually. But the weird thing is when I go into the solar system map mode it says I'm landed.... I had a previous explosion up at around 60k(purposely created) that made my ship parts fly out of the kerbin influence and made me wonder this same thing. Is it possible I just moved the planet a microfraction? The other ship obviously wasn't landed as it had taken off. But this one exploded on the runway. So what could this be? A glitch(known or unknown), a feature, or a new launch method waiting to be abused to it's fullest!? BTW, It's 2600+tons of stuff flying upwards from an explosion. So no small feat. And currently at 3km altitude and rising. With a slowly falling 2.8m/s. This started with only 3.8m/s. So, it's not far off the original velocity. Adding pics here once my pic loader is working properly:

Well that gives a bit more hope if that is the case.

If KSP cannot or does not produce extremely high parts count with the new update, is there a way to make parts become one part later? If you take fuselage parts and fuel parts and take account of the offset tool you could make an assemble button where certain parts(maybe selectable) can be turned into on giant part. This could be called hull setting or something and making the body of a ship. This could save tons of resources on the CPU if it gets rid of the physics or something for those parts and actually makes a unique part. This could also be good for part/ship creation. People could lay hulls persay for ship and trade them to people etc. This could also be very good for space stations etc. I was thinking there could be limits though. Either it doesn't support the offset or stacking(which I hope it would allow personally) or it has some test/requirement for stability in the parts with struts before allowing successful combining of parts. This could get rid of the struts(or make them invisible optionally) on the body and allow what you selected or put together to be one giant part with the normal stats involved. Not sure about multiple stacked or partially stacked fuel tanks and fuel amounts. Although I do this with all of my ships and have no personal problem with it. I would think at minimum as long as there is the same mass(including struts) it would be balanced in a sense. Albeit not in a totally realistic sense. I would imagine this would/could hypothetically get rid of any unnecessary physics on the parts besides heat/external influences. it could allow for unique cargo hold creations and other structures you cannot do in a sense currently. And allow for(especially if parts can be stacked) a much greater use of each part naturally. This is also assuming this is part of the problem with parts count limits. If you can put together hubs and other parts with joints(And it preserves unused connection points.) on them you could make null most of them mods for any reason besides aesthetics. Which of course is something else missing from the stock game technically(Aesthetics design if it's not clear). 8) Obviously balance could be take into account more seriously and limit parts stacking for realistic fuel amounts etc. But this would still be useful to a lot of people. If you need a name call it an assembly tool! AKA a joint remover! BTW, what does cause the parts count limits currently? I'm assuming it's related to the 100% cpu core that is always moving? I've read both physics calcs and UI coding or something similar. Anyone know? Is the code open for this game too btw besides the ship parts stats. I'm uncertain what they have done in this direction. It could be fun to go over it. Could we mode or make new physics ourselves for a mod or anything? Or make ones to select from for fun?

That doesn't mean they coded it to limit parts count does it?I keep worrying this turns out to be the case and they are purposely not allowing more out of some idea of balance or design... 8(

If they get good performance in this game for multiple thousands in parts easily(or an equivalent alternative.). Multiplayer will be really good!

When you hit F3 there is a flight result window that keeps track of damage etc from the game and other tidbits as a log. Is there a way to completely turn this off so the computer is not even recording it. I need it to test flight a vehicle that has engines that just kiss other parts of the ship and endlessly fill this up. It may be crashing the game or causing lag after endless inputs and was curious if there was anyway to shut this off all the way. Not just in the Flight window screen persay but in any back logs also. Though anything will help. I'm trying to free up cpu on the one core that is always 100%. I've run the game via starting the official launcher and used turn off log to give extra performance(for a very big ship) and AMD mode for my CPU(which seems to be helping), but I need to turn off everything I can. I'm already at the lowest settings I can pick too.

I do that for Eve and duna and other cross transfers between planets. It always guarantees an easier capture. I don't know if it's efficient but you will get the capture. Even off of kerbin. I think it has to do with the fact you are burning along the longest edge of a circle where the edges of the circles have the longest time to cross over each other on initial pass to the other circle. And I think they honestly likely made the game simpler that way so people could do it. You would need a very fast planet for that not to work. And it still probably raises the odds. I do all of my transfers this way actually. And I do them all manually. Even sometimes blind with no stock in game tool. And I never use mods.

I think to do transfers you can generally wait for it to be on the horizon and then go for the ascending descending node and basically capture it.

Would 1.95 tons be accurate then? I'm building a ship from Star citizen and their SCUs(Standard Cargo Unit) are 1.95 tons per cubic meter. It seems to work conveniently and I wonder if it's not the same logical basis for the unit of ore used in this game. 200units*0.01 is 2 tons which is just over 1.95 tons. So, 195 units per ton per cubic meter?! Unless their 1.95 is rounded of course.

Here is basically what the finished product looks like. For now.... I just need to get some small things added and try to get the weight to the correct number and try to get this into orbit as an SSTO so I don't have to add boosters. I think I need to calculate the correct amount of ore to keep the main boosters running longer so I can get a high enough apoapsis to circularize with the nuclear engines between 300k and 1million meters. I got to 185km apoapsis without the fuel in the head of the ship.So There is hope I can slowly float up and then circularize. But the longer I can burn the rhino engines the better. The downside is it takes 5 hours from lag to burn up to orbit and use the fuel up. And that was before I added the rest of the parts just now!! ><

I'm on Fedora 22 and I keep getting the disk usage is limited warning for my root partition while playing the game(This is from what I can tell only while using a very large 2k+ part ship). It then crashes to desktop. I'm wondering what is using root from the game. Or, if not, what in fedora might be doing something as the game plays that is using the root drive? Would either auto use temp or something similar?! I'm hoping this is something I can turn off somehow as It would be a pain to repartition and increase the root drive size. That or move the file/folders to a non root location. I believe I already previously had turned off log from the launchers setting to get extra performance. I have 15.7 gigs total with 2.6gigs free while the game is not running according to my file manager. Anyone have any idea?

If the icon is only turning red and not the part I think it's an indicator that you are above the safe speed to deploy. Or is that not what you are refering too? That indicator helps tremndously as you do not have to right click the part to be certain. Are you saying it turned yellow and red after deploying or before? Edit: NVM, i'm stupid. 8) Did you regain speed? I think I've deployed early and dropped engine speed and destroyed them that way. Gravity builds up speed quickly without something stopping it. Although that may be obvious. The parachutes obviously can't maintain full drag at those altitudes as they can't deploy. Makes me wonder what they should be able to handle at full altitude realistically with so little atmosphere. I wonder how accurate the game is.

I'm surprised they can't make conventional non radiation producing explosion to do this very thing for cheap. Are conventional explosions powerful enough now to do what the older nukes did. Assuming that was designed using real nukes at the time and not theoretical ones. And these engines would be a lot more fun if they are realistic stats. I have played with some and they are way to overpowered. I don't think they are in any way realistic to the real things. If they were I'm sure it would feel more realistic. maybe make a 10 diameter one or make a smaller one taking into account the lack of ISP noted above with a smaller diameter. They really need to be balanced properly or they are just not enjoyable. The more depth to how and why it works the more realistic and the more it feels like you are using the real thing. That is what makes them fun to use and try to work around. It also leaves room for more things and gets rid of balancing issues because you are making it work a certain way and not trying to artificially balance it to other things.

If I didn't have 1028 before, I do now. Yea, i'm running linux. I'm almost hoping I wasn't running 1028 before. It might have solved some weird things I had to work around in my builds. 8) Like sticking a cargo bay on the end of a hubmax(or possibly other items) and using the offset tool and it not acting correctly... I thought maybe that was the collusion error they fixed with the 1028 patch. but I'm not certain. I'll go check it out and see.

I'm just realizing I only have 1.0.5.0. I just saw the sticky about 1028 from 1024.(I honestly thought I had the hotfixes already.) I get the game from steam. Why has it not updated to these version?! I have it set to auto update and even set it now to highest priority. It refuses to update it. Is there a seperate place to get the update. I can't find one. And would one cause any problems with the steam version? I also tried opening the game manually via the launcher with the update button. It is grayed out and unusable. Edit: Just saw the thread about the patcher problem also. Does this apply to the 1.0.5.0 to the hotfix updates? I'm deleting content and telling steam to reinstall now. Hopefully fixes certain bugs.. Nope! I just reinstalled and it is still version 1.0.5.0?! Why is steam behind on updates? If there is a manual download where is it? I can't find it on the main site.

I think some of that may be calculating the drop in weight from the loss of the fuel tank. AKA it's assuming you are doing asparagus staging by the looks of it. The rest could be aerodynamics or something else(maybe the diameter of the front of the tank at the top). I don't think it's weight. Only the odd tanks are different base mass per weight. Like MK2 and a few others. And those are like .57 vs. of .5 or equivalent. When you measure tanks mass. take out the fuel weight then compare to another tank. They are generally the same. I think there are now only two tank types for liquids weighing 0.005 per unit. They equal the a factor of 0.5 or 0.57 empty, as stated above, when compared to total fuel. fuel weights: Xen: 0.0001 per unit MP: 0.004 per unit LF: 0.005 per unit OX: 0.005 per unit Ore: 0.01 per unit Edit: Actually, in this case the weight is smaller for the lighter tank. MK0vsMK1: 400/50=8 .275-0.25=0.025x8=0.2 Total weight if it were mk1 size. MK1: 2.25-2=0.25 So it's the empty weight of the tank(Similar to what Chaos_Klaus was stating) for the first 2. And the tanks after are probably calculating for asparagus staging because of the decouplers. NVM, I assume you know most of that. 8) It's getting late!

How much ore is there per Cubic meter or whatnot in KSP? I'm trying to recreate a ship and am trying to convert it but I haven't found anything to do that particular measurement. This is the last piece of data I need to scale the ore containers properly.