Starlionblue

"Everybody" always says that because for CPU/GPU intensive gaming a desktop will give you better performance at a lower price with more upgradeability. That being said, the laptop you linked would more than adequate for KSP.

If you live in the US, NewEgg or Amazon are a good start. I agree with reinstalling. More work but you get a "fresh start". Do ensure you have a proper backup and test your backup. On a laptop, the HDD is typically the performance bottleneck. Upgrading to an SSD makes a very noticeable performance difference. During KSP play itself, as in launching rockets, you won't notice as much of a difference, but load times will be improved noticeably, e.g. start of game, going to launchpad and so on. Bootup will be much faster, and apps in general will load faster.

I'd love to see some speed per Thermal Design Power comparisons. As I understand it, the Ryzens tends to run rather hotter than their Intel counterparts. I'd rather have a PC with quieter fans than eke out that last bit of performance. Either way KSP doesn't really require bleeding edge CPU performance. I've been running a "lower power" 65W i7 for the past few years and KSP runs fine. But that's just me.

Love ThinkPads. I've had about 15-20 of them through the years. I've always found TrackPoint easier to use than a trackpad, but maybe that's just habit. Thanks for the tip. The big fan is a plus for noise reasons. However it still has one of those dinky PSU fans, and I'm worried about a high pitched whine.

Good info thanks. I'll try to find time for more testing in the next few days. Either way, it ran nice and smoothly. Night and day compared to high graphics resolution and settings.

Excellent testing idea. I ran the graphics down to 1024x768 with most of the details stuff off or "low". Then I launched a 340 part vehicle. CPU usage by KSP stayed at 30-35% throughout and everything was nice and crisp. (GPU usage was also quite low, of course.) (Yes, I know bits are falling off during staging. I think some mod didn't make it through the latest update. ) This would indicate that there is quite some CPU headroom and an eGPU could be a workable solution. Time to go shopping.

Thanks for the video. Useful info there. My monitor is an LG very similar to the curved one shown in the video. Resolution is 3440x1440. My desktop has a GTX770 and no problem running KSP at excellent frame rates in fullscreen full res on that. I'd probably be willing to spend US$600-700 to get a decent eGPU solution, of course depending on if that is possible with my current laptop.

Good morning all. I have an eGPU question. I'm trying to downsize from my desktop to just my laptop. The only games I play are KSP and (rarely) Civ VI, so I don't need cutting edge graphics. I have a Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon with an Intel i5. It's perfect for when I travel. I tried KSP on it and it's ok on the laptop screen but on my big monitor it crawls. Integrated graphics obviously. I don't play KSP on trips so I just need something for home. I've been looking at getting an external GPU. Either the Lenovo Graphics Dock (Pros: tiny and quiet. Con: Not upgradeable.) or the Razer Core X Chroma (Pros: upgradeable GPU. Cons: Larger, more costly, and apparently not super-quiet). Anyone have experience with eGPUs and KSP? Obviously the graphics performance will be orders of magnitude better, but will the laptop CPU become a big bottleneck?

Thx. Much obliged.

Good morning all. I'm trying to downsize from my desktop to just my laptop. The only games I play are KSP and (rarely) Civ VI, so I don't need cutting edge graphics. I have a Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon with an Intel i5. It's perfect for when I travel. I tried KSP on it and it's ok on the laptop screen but on my big monitor it crawls. Integrated graphics obviously. I don't play KSP on trips so I just need something for home. I've been looking at getting an external GPU. Either the Lenovo Graphics Dock (Pros: tiny and quiet. Con: Not upgradeable.) or the Razer Core X Chroma (Pros: upgradeable GPU. Cons: Larger, more costly, and apparently not super-quiet). Anyone have experience with eGPUs and KSP? Obviously the graphics performance will be orders of magnitude better, but will the laptop CPU become a big bottleneck?

Nicely done. And yes, I agree that it is very much FBW. I got to thinking about the wobble on my jury-rigged launch pad. Maybe if I used some struts from the beams to the second stage to hold it steady...

Hand cranking it on Eve ascent. Thats hardcore.

Eve is something else indeed All 1.25m I think is too long and slender for good control. I tried that too You can download the craft file from the link in my post above. The only non-stock item is the MechJeb part.

Indeed. This vehicle can do a stable orbit higher than 100km from an equatorial sea-level location on Eve.

Here's a link to the craft file on Dropbox, btw. Forgot I could do that! If you need a good low level testing spot on Eve, try lat 0, long 18 in HyperEdit. For the ascent profile in Mechjeb, try: Start turn at 10km or 362m/s Turn shape 63.7%

Keeping airspeed under terminal velocity is relatively more important on Eve, because the atmosphere is so thick that drag becomes the primary constraint. On a world with a thinner atmosphere, exceeding terminal velocity does not have nearly as negative an effect. If you flipped the rocket around, pointed the nose at the ground and let go without thrust, it would accelerate to terminal velocity, then stop accelerating. Terminal velocity is dependent on the shape of the vehicle and the density at that location. Drag is now equal to weight. You can "increase the weight" of the vehicle by adding thrust, but the drag increase is not worth it. You can also get a terminal velocity display with Kerbal Engineer Redux. It's a selectable item in one of the configurable dashboards.

Not so much skill as MechJeb. Either way quite marginal as a design, but gets the job done. Of course, I could add a second engine and more tankage to the first stage but that bumps the weight up by a good 6-8 tons. I did a lot of experimenting with limiting dynamic pressure. I noticed that with a slender vehicle like this the terminal velocity tends to be higher than my maximum speed throughout the ascent, so no point limiting dynamic pressure. It seems better for performance to accept higher dynamic pressure than on Kerbin, even 5 times as high. As a general rule, wider vehicles have a lower terminal velocity. Given the soupy nature of Eve's atmosphere, making the vehicle as slender as possible with smooth, long tapers, gives disproportionately greater drag improvement compared to the same design choices on Kerbin. The thicker the atmosphere, the more frontal area and taper sharpness seem key. (I'm pretty sure the vanilla aerodynamics don't model area ruling, but Ferram does.) Trying for a Sears-Haack body is a good starting point for Eve. On Kerbin, extreme low-drag aerodynamics are less important, so you can go for a wider design as needed structurally. Basically the thicker the atmosphere, the more slender and smoothly tapered the vehicle needs to be. On Duna, by comparison, you can get away with quite a fat "cigar" if your mission demands it, without incurring significant aerodynamic penalties. Thanks for giving the design a shot, btw.

My Delta-V values seem close to yours. I have a docking port Jr. and two little solar panels. Above the fairing in the third stage is a FL-T100 tank. I emptied the lander can of monoprop. I did fiddle with the ascent profile quite a bit. Probably ran two dozen tests with different turn altitudes, turn profiles, Q limits. The differences can be quite significant. At practically sea level on Eve Second stage: Third stage: Coasting to circularisation This orbit isn't very neat but it is clear of the atmosphere, and I have a teeny bit of Delta-V to spare.

I was fine with the wobble as long as I limit the Vector gimbal to around 65-70. With full gimbal I got overcontrol. Should have mentioned that. Good thought on the fuel priority. Will play with that tomorrow. Thanks! I start the turn around 10km. Once the first stage, ehm, stages, I lose quite a bit of speed but the terminal velocity goes down as well due to the change in shape so it actually works. Side note: I also tried a four stage variant, dividing the current upper stage into two with a Spark for the fourth stage. There was no significant performance difference compared to the current design.

Finally it all came together! I knew I had the Delta-V and TWR numbers required. As we all know, the biggie on Eve is drag, so I did some testing to find the most slippery configuration. I needed around 1800 liquid fuel for the first stage. I tested a few different stacks for performance: 2x FT-T800 plus 3x FL-T800 in parallel with Strack Tricouplers at top and bottom 1x C7 adapter and 1x Rockomax X200-32. 1x C7 adapter, 1x Rockomax X200-16, 1x Rockomax X200-8 and 1x C7 adapter (inverted). The last configuration gave much better performance. Nice tapered shape not only at the top of the stage, but back inwards to the single Vector. That last bit made an unexpectedly massive difference. Configuration I ended up with: First Stage: 1x Vector. 1x C7 adapter, 1x Rockomax X200-16, 1x Rockomax X200-8 and 1x C7 adapter (inverted). Second Stage: 1x Spike. 1x FL-T800, 1x FL-T100 Third Stage: 1x Terrier. 1x FL-T200, 1x FL-T100. I went back and forth between the Mk1 command pod with a small nosecone and the Mk1 lander can with a fairing. The difference is marginal and both can do the job, but if you want a docking port the fairing with the lander can means it won't be sticking out in the wind. The little six-legged contraption at the bottom serves as a stable launch pad from Eve.

My obsession with Eve continues. This is a reliable 50-ish ton ascent vehicle from Eve sea level, complete with everything you need to get from Kerbin to the surface of Eve, and then up to Low Eve Orbit. It even includes a rover! (Obviously with the rover and Eve descent hardware it is more like 86 tons, but the bit that takes off from Eve is 51.32 tons.) Stock with the exception of MechJeb. The whole thing is 340 parts, 2173 tons on the pad at the KSP, and has a total 14415 vacuum dV. During Eve aerobraking, inflate the heatshield, set SAS to retrograde and turn RCS on. Once you've done that, it is very stable on entry. Once safe to do so, stage the parachutes. Once the parachutes have deployed, stage the heat shield and its support structure, and also deploy the fairing around the lander. The vehicle sets down on Eve using a six-pronged "landing pad". When it is time to leave, staging ignites the engines and separates from the "pad" simultaneously. Disembark by transferring your Kerbonaut from the pod to the can, then EVA to the rover. Don't forget to transfer him/her back up to the pod! Before taking off from Eve, stage the "pylons" to get those rudders and chutes out of the way. Ascent profile from Eve should be start of turn around 250m/s. Be careful with heating, especially stage 3, with the Vector engine pushing only the center bits. Sometimes a fin breaks off during staging of the side boosters. The vehicle is still stable (enough) with two fins. You'll need to send another ship to Eve orbit to pick up your intrepid explorer. Craft file included below but anything with a Jr. docking port, thrusters and enough dV works. The craft file for the vehicle is here. The craft file for the retrieval vehicle is here. This goes to Eve orbit, docks with the Eve lander/ascender, and goes back to Kerbin. Trying to embed an Imgur album without much success.. Album here. In the VAB. The tanks on the "floor" of the lander are RCS fuel and ballast. More weight at the bottom means less likely to tumble on Eve atmo entry. It's an Eve rover! On the pad. 3 Made it! Chute and maneuvering pylons disassembled. The Evemosphere is thick and dense!

Indeed. Countering Mach tuck with an all moving tailplane (or Canard) is essential. Exactly like on real supersonic aircraft. One thing I've noticed is that once your Mach number goes above about 4, directional stability (yaw axis) becomes a problem. Adding a couple of fixed vertical fins (I use the tail fin part with movement set to zero) as far back as possible helps a lot. If I have a delta wing, putting fixed vertical fins at the wingtips also helps.

At least if you're using FAR.

I don't know about 100% accuracy, but certainly they act much more properly. FAR actually attempts to model accurately, and does so very well, while stock is rather sloppy when it comes to aero. I don't think that FAR is on par with the CFD tools available to the likes of Airbus, Boeing and SpaceX, but IMHO a completely different and much more enjoyable KSP experience.

They're hardly even comparable. FAR makes KSP vehicles behave as they would in a real world atmosphere, while stock is barely a caricature by comparison. Not only is FAR quite accurate, it allows you to use proper aerodynamic principles and get the expected results. The flip side is that if you don't build following robust aerodynamic principles, your vehicle won't behave very well, while stock is rather forgiving. The analysis tools included also help massively, as do the much expanded customisation options for various surfaces. Personally I have a hard time playing stock after using FAR for so long. Naturally if all you have is a simple rocket there isn't a big difference, but anything where aerodynamics are very significant, for example larger rockets with stabilising fins, large re-entry vehicles or spaceplanes and you'll really see FAR shine.