SlabGizor117

Yeah, I'm using the 32 bit one then. EDIT: Actually, there's only one KSP.exe, and then the launcher. Sooo, wat do?

I didn't know it was possible to run KSP in 64 bit if I was using a 32 bit PC. How can I make sure I am using 32 bit? I believe that for 32 bit PCs 4gb is the max RAM. I know it's not a RAM issue though, because my old PC which also had 4gb ran KSP better than this new one does now. I should look into updating my drivers though.

So, I finally tried to use the latest version and it's working terrible on my PC. Worse than 1.0.5 was on an old Windows Vista computer. I have two problems: First, low framerate and more frequent crashes than previous versions. Second, bad resolution. I went through all the different resolutions on my game and it looked crystal clear in the main menu. But then when I went to the KSC and the SPH(I like planes more :D) it looked like crap. Not that I could tell very well, it crashed about 3 seconds after I went in the SPH. I have a Windows 10 Optiplex 790 32-bit 4gig RAM PC with a Nvidia Geforce 640 graphics card. I don't know if that helps anybody, but I do know that it shouldn't be running KSP that badly because it did much better and crashed less frequently when I had like, 10 mods on KSP. I hesitated to update to 1.1 at first because I heard it performed so terribly. Is 1.1.2 still that bad??

So I'm too lazy to dedicate to real career, or even science mode, and I don't like the restriction of design that comes with it, but I love the idea of doing a progressing space program in KSP, so I'm gonna do a Sandbox Career - basically a roleplay save, with "F5 simulations", because I'm also too lazy to be super safe about it and I'll wanna restart if I lose someone like Jeb. I'm going to use a few mods, such as BDArmory because I wanna do fighters as part of my "career", and probably some gameplay mods like Tweakscale, RCS Build Aid, Trajectories, hopefully, and of course KER. My plan is to edit in albums of each mission or craft I build. Hopefully I'll keep it going, but I don't have the patience or dedication to stick my nose to the grindstone and keep my interest usually. Hopefully though, actually documenting and sharing what I do will revive my enthusiasm. Let me know what you guys think, and if you'd like to see this. Hopefully I'll whip up a few crafts to start off today, not sure. EDIT: Or, MAYBE NOT BECAUSE KSP SUCKS ON MY PC NOW... FOR NO REASON I can't get my resolution worked out so everything's grainy and pixelated crap like it's a 2006 game, and it's crashing 2/3 of the time... THANKS SQUAD So if anyone has any ideas on how to get KSP to not be a pile of crap, that'd be nice.

Good ideas, but there are a few that are hard to do. Like asteroids making craters is just too hard to do, because changing the landscape of Kerbin permanently is hard to keep up with. More engines may be redundant as most of the engines one would need for any rocket they're making are already implemented. What do you mean that gliders should actually fly like they do in real life? Your English is pretty good, by the way!

Oh, right. Thanks!

Title pretty much says it. All I can find that's closest to that is unread threads, which don't show private messages.

I have an older joystick, the logitech Attack 3, and all the buttons bind to keys fine but the throttle wheel and the joystick doesn't register. If I set them to the axis bindings, it says Attack 3 Axis 1, 0, etc, but when I click accept and look at it again it says not found. If I click on it to set the binding again it also says not found there. I can rebind it and it'll show up, but it does the same thing when I click accept.

Whoa.. Middle East wars I assume? Would you mind telling more about it?

Ok so I moved KSP out of Program Files, but it turns out that 1.1 is preetty bad.. I didn't think all the warnings not to update were really accurate, but.. How do I download 1.05 instead? EDIT: I was too lazy to check before I asked but it turns out they still have 1.05 for download. I am so smrt

I downloaded it, extracted the file from downloads to C: Program Files, and opened the launcher. The play and update buttons were greyed out though, so I loaded up the normal KSP.exe icon from the program files file. Now the progress bar is stuck on "Loading asset bundle definitions"? Wat do? EDIT: I have a 32 bit windows 10 PC with 4 GB of ram. Is it possible that KSP is trying to use 64 bit? EDIT 2: Ok, so, I'm trying to look for the output log, but I can't find it. I looked in the appdata file for when KSP was installed in Program Files, but I don't know where I'm looking... Where I did look though, I didn't see anything. Where can I find it?

My grandfather served in Korea as a marine, I believe. M*A*S*H was his favorite show because that's what he did in Korea. There was a lot of survivor's guilt I'm sure, from the few stories I can think of off the top of my head. He had been going out, I believe, to pick up any bodies or... Parts, around, though that could be wrong. Fuzzy memory. Anyways he had been out for a few days, and when he came back he was told to go out and do that again, and one other corpsman decided to take his place so he could have some time off, and then was shot by a sniper. He also had two bodyguards, I believe, killed protecting him. I'll update if I get a chance to talk to my dad and there are any other interesting stories.

Although it's the point of the whole channel, CinemaSins nitpicks everything wrong with every movie it does and especially with space movies. 3/4 of the crap he picks at isn't even a legit plot hole, just something he thought was dumb.. Not everyone may even agree that some of the stuff he picks at is bad, but he presents it as fact. Big YouTube channels annoy me...

I second airsoft. I played it for a little bit, but didn't have enough money or interest to keep playing. I would like to get back into it if I had the money, though. First I would say go to reddit/r/airsoft, it's a great place to look into for getting started and there's tons of help on there for what gun to buy, what accessories, etc. I wouldn't bother with camo for a while until you really decide it's worth it, I didn't think it was. Look into fields to play at around you. The distance may decide for you whether you want to get into it in the first place, but there are some who drive an hour and a half to get to theirs. Even if your field only requires eye protection, use full face. It's not fun blowing your $1,200 on a broken tooth. Or, you could get a drone! That would be really cool, I bet! $1,200 is more than enough for a really good one.

I like the mainsail, it's a good all around 2.5m engine.

I did say in the OP I prefer the Halo 3 version. 4-5 is too streamlined and flat-bottomed and I don't like the little thrusters on the bottom

Well Well, honestly, I would prefer it to use infinite fuel so that you can balance the thrust easier, especially with the possibility of a warthog, or even a scorpion being attachable to the back. So maybe the best thing to do would be to build it with empty tanks, but add some dedicated ballast tanks to counterbalance the warthog and scorpion. Plus it'll keep it from having a dV limit if someone wanted to take it into orbit. Build however you want, I just think infinite fuel would be a better idea.

Yeah, I'd love to do that too! Although, then I would have to build that also! There would also be some thrust balancing to do, maybe I could set up some ballast fuel tanks. That's a long way away, though. Let me know if you guys find any downloads for one.

I would loooove to have a Halo Pelican in KSP with full VTOL capability and full size, with working bay doors and landing gear with IR, and a full size crew bay, but I've had problems running through the knee deep water of design and testing and fixing. I just don't have the patience to sit there and work on one thing for however long without getting bored and giving up when I run into problems. With it being such an aesthetic build, it could be done with infinite fuel on, so it has less TWR, fuel, and balancing problems. I'll be working on one and share pictures, but I think it'd be cool to have other people with their own ideas that we can bounce off each other. It's not that hard, it's just the aesthetic that's the hard part. I think my favorite version is the Halo 3 one, so I'm gonna go with that for a reference. Let me know what you guys come up with!

If I was playing Career, yeah. But I'm playing sandbox! Why not use $100 gold plated monster HDMI cables? Like I said, I just prefer the aesthetics of LFBs.

Actually, that's exactly what I was trying to do; a 5 ton lifter. My main problem is that after the 5 tons worth of fuel, and the upper stage with an FL-T400 and a 909, I couldn't build a decent first stage under it. I am trying to build small with it, I was trying to limit myself to 1.25 for the 5-10 ton lifters, but I just can't do it, there's such a huge gap between the 30/45 and 2.5m/Vectors. I still haven't found a solution with my first stage, because I am trying to build small and also aesthetically. That's kinda why I'm refusing the "moar boosters" mentality. Sure I can throw a bunch of SRBs on and call it done, but like you said, I'm trying to build small and I also prefer LFBs to SRBs. I dunno, SRBs just seem clunky, like using duct tape to fix a problem. "Just duct tape it, it'll work fine" - "Just throw some SRBs on it, it'll work fine". It just seems like SRBs are a quick fix that would be more properly solved with LFBs. I guess because of their inversatility(real word?) and uncontrolability.

I want to emphasize the point I made earlier about the intense planning that goes into rocket launches, because I don't want people to have that attitude of the people who supervise those things. If you haven't read my reply to the post you quoted, please do.

Ok, let me clear some stuff up. First, the cost is irrelevant as I'm playing on Sandbox for now. Second, What I mean is that the vector is OP for it's size, not in a bad way. It's super heave, powerful, as someone said, a 2.5m engine in a 1.25m package. My point though is that it was too powerful to use instead of the Reliant or Swivel because those two were so weak. The rocket I was building was a 5 ton lifter, with a half size tank(I forget the name) and a 909. Then it went to the first stage with the Reliant or Swivel. Now, if it was a 2.5m rocket, and(I'm guesstimating here), say, a 20 ton payload, I would need a probe core, half size tank, skipper, decoupler, half tank and orange tank, and a mainsail, and that would most likely get to orbit. Even if it didn't, all I would need to do is strap two other identical first stage boosters Delta-IV style(except with crossfeed). I can't do that with 1.25m engines. That's what I mean by TWR of 1.25m engines compared to 2.5m engine TWR. I just can't build any reliable 1.25m lifters unless they turn into pyramid rockets with 4 LFBs and another 4 SRBs. I shouldn't need that. And I don't use the aerospike, mostly for aesthetic reasons. I understand they're cheap entry level engines, but they're so hard to lift payloads with. If the Reliant were 250 and Swivel 220, that would probably be perfect. I may be wrong, but it just seems like if I were to swap every 1.25m part with their 2.5m counterpart(all fuel tanks, 909-poodle, swivel-mainsail/skipper), it would work just fine. I dunno, they just seem to underpowered to lift anything decently. EDIT: I'll do some testing and post back to see if there's any difference.

The relative TWR of engine thrust to how many tanks it can lift, compared to 2.5m parts, is terrible. I had two full size 1.25m tanks with a swivel and it was like, a 1.05 TWR. So I put a vector on it and it was somewhere around 4. If the rocket was rebuilt with its 2.5m counterpart pieces, the TWR of the first stage would probably be around 2. Why are the Swivel and Reliant so bad??

True. For example, with Gravity, the movie... No debris could be in a retrograde orbit.