tsaven

The problem with doing this is that it will shut down the converters in the event that you do run out of storage for recyclables. Because many people in the intermediate stages of playing with USI don't convert them back into processed resources, this would be a near-crippling behavior. If it works for your playstyle more power to you, but this would be an extremely detrimental change and I doubt RD would take it as a Pull Request. Post pics of your vessel and the right-click menu of the drill while it's running. If you've got high bonuses from onboard engineers or something, they can generate quite a lot more heat than you expect.

I'd have to dig through everything again, but all of the parts were balanced against the spreadsheet that RoverDude put out. The big thing that limits the KPBS parts in terms of capacity and production is their physical size; if you compare then to the USI parts, the KBPS parts are far smaller in dimensions and RD's balance spreadsheet accounts for this.

This is going to make a very common situation for me much harder I use your reactors with RoverDude's MKS for refining/manufacturing, for unmanned drilling and refining outposts. It's very difficult to predict exactly how much power the unmanned outposts will take (as it depends on a lot of ever-changing factors), so I'll over-spec the reactors and then once the outpost is landed and drilling/refining, I'll use the output slider for the reactor to turn the power output down so that it just barely matches power consumption and I can squeeze the longest life possible out of the EnU. To make things more complicated, having an engineer on board the vessel gives the MKS drills large boosts in output (with the matching increase in power consumption). So even if I did temporarily put an engineer on board to allow me to adjust the output of the reactors to match the power draw requirements of the drills, simply the act of having the engineer on board makes the drill draw a lot more power. So any adjustments I made to the reactor output while the engineer is on board would be completely thrown off the moment she left the vessel, because the power consumption of the drills would drop. I understand the need for more balance and to nerf control of the reactors in some way, but for me personally this would be a frustrating change.

Did the reactors get lighter, or did the power output increase with the switch to .9? I'm currently on 0.9.8.

Haha, well I'm likely on 1.3.1 for a while now. I've got so many mods that are hacked into working together that I want to put some time into actually playing the game for a while, rather than constantly writing MM configs to make things work properly. Maybe mid next year once mods are caught up, then I'll think about looking at 1.5.

Just totally normal flight, and from looking at the specs in the VAB I simply don't have enough radiators. But I know I DID have enough radiators previously, so I'm assuming the specs changed. I've got four M2-XL reactors, 40x edge mounted radiators and 2x of the Large active radiators. They're all on, but that's clearly not enough to cool down 16,000kw of heat. Oh. Yeah, that's it then. I only recently upgrade from 1.2.2 to 1.3.1 (OPM VO is still holding me up). Time to go slap a bunch more radiators on this thing!

Hey guys, did the cooling for the nuclear reactors get nerfed sometime recently? Are they now putting out more heat than they previously were? A ship that I built using NFT engines and reactors that ran perfectly fine is now overheating, and from looking at the specs in the VAB I definetly don't have enough cooling for the reactors. But I swear when I built this ship I worked out the cooling needs very specifically, I had plenty of cooling capacity and I took it to Jool and back with no problems. So was there a config change sometime in the last year? (I'm still running way behind on versions due to mod compatibility)

Heh, honestly I'm not even sure. I just used the automatic overclocking utility that came with my motherboard. Somewhere around 5.3GHz, I think? I'm not really sure because it seems to shift a lot and I don't quite understand how base clock vs turbo clock works. I just push the "MAKE MOAR FASTAR" button and let the motherboard sort it out.

Performance for part count scales pretty well with clock speed, so you will see a noticeable increase. 10-20%. For what it's worth, I just went from an i5-4590 to an i5-8600k that's OCed using an AIO water-cooling kit and my framerate more than doubled. Stations that used to be EXTREMELY slow and laggy at 8-10fps are now buttery at 25fps.

Resolution is going to matter a lot for that. It should be okay, but Scatterer is going to give you a very big framerate hit. Should be manageable though, as long as you're playing at 1920x1080 or under.

I know this an old thread but it looks like you're still keeping the first post updated, so if I could offer a minor recommendation: Regarding Intel CPUs, the i5-8600K (Unlocked) is arguably the best CPU you can get for KSP from a price/performance ratio. It's $260 ($100 cheaper than the i7) and the only major difference between it and the i7-8700K is hyperthreading and some cache, neither of which makes a damn bit of difference for KSP. It also overclocks just as well as the i7-8700k for those that are into that kind of thing.

If you're doing that, save yourself money and get the 8600 (or 8600k if you want to overclock). The difference between the 8600 and 8700 (Hyperthreading and cache) won't give significant performance increase for most games. And definitely not with KSP. Also look into de-lidding the CPU. That can lower temperatures by 5c-10c, and will make a big difference if you're trying to cool it in a small case.

Just a matter of how poor do you want to be. Option 2 will have a lot more performance. If that's worth the huge inflation price is a decision only you can make. It'll run KSP well, but the real problem is going to be the cooling system on your laptop. As a general rule, the tiny little fans and heatsinks on laptops aren't designed for sustained periods of high utilization, and the CPUs will usually start slowing themselves down after a few minutes of heavy use to keep themselves from burning up. So you may notice the performance dropping off dramatically the longer you play.

That's a good word, I'm gonna have to take it If I were in your situation, I'd probably stick with the Ryzen and a 1070, and save your money for the future. There's always going to be faster and better in the future, and it's impossible to future-proof. You could blow $3,000 or $1,000 right now, and five years from now they'll both be equally obsolete. That being said, I'm the one putting together a shiny new OCed i5-8600k with a giant water-cooling setup and 32GB of RAM . . . running on a 2gb GTX 960. Because all I play is KSP and I have more money than brains. So maybe my advice isn't worth much.

That case is impressively tiny. I didn't know a case so little existed that could still fit a GPU of any kind. Heat is always going to be an issue in a small case like that, a 120mm AiO kit is the best you'll be able to do. I know the 2700 has a 105w thermal envelope but I don't know what the realistic consumption is during gaming or whatever other CPU intensive activities you're doing. For what it's worth, I just bought a Fractal Designs Core 500 case for my OC'ed i5 build. It's similar height/width to the 110, but longer. This length allows for much larger cooling systems though, it'll even fit a 280mm radiator for some near-silent OCing. Maybe consider that if you want to stay small but keep heat under control.

You've got two lungs as well! And surly you don't need both of them. I'll be honest though, you're spending a lot more money for a kinda questionable gain in performance on a very specific niche game. For anything that's not KSP, a Ryzen will be excellent and even for KSP it's not going to be bad. Maybe you'll have to keep your part counts under 300 and back off the mods a little, or just deal with 20fps (which is still totally playable for most situations). In a world where money grows on trees, sure an OC'ed i5 with a 1080 would be awesome but . . . I'm not sure it's worth 50% more. I have no idea what your situation is like, but I might just stick with the 1070 for now and keep saving your money, and maybe buy a 2080 in a year or so once you can also afford the VR googles.

I love this hobby An 8600k doesn't come with a stock cooler, so you're looking at something aftermarket. If you're OCing, figure at least $50-$70 big a large and quiet air cooler, or in the $100-$150 range for a pre-made closed loop watercooling kit (Fry's has the H115i refurbs for a steal at $90, and that's a beast of a 280mm radiator system). Admittedly, that's a lot of extra money for another 15% of single-thread performance that isn't going to help any games that aren't KSP (Or Dwarf Fortress). I play this rediculous game enough that it's worth it for me, but I'm not sure expanding your budget that much makes sense if you're going to be playing many other games.

It's a solid all-around build for a reasonable budget. As others have commented, a 1080 Ti will be better for VR, but for 1920x1080 gaming a 1070 will do very well. However, if you're playing KSP then the graphics card is overkill even with a ton of visual mods. KSP is almost entirely single-thread CPU limited, which is something that AMD's recent processors aren't good at. Unfortunately Intel does hold the performance crown in that category and an overclocked i5-8600K is the best you'll reasonably get (the i7 has no benefit for most use).

I'm using NFT nuclear reactors. Is it possible to refuel them from another ship in the near vicinity, or does the EU container have to be on the same ship (via docking or whatever) as the reactor that is being fueled?

Oh hey, there's a whole specific thread for this! Thanks!

I don't play anything else right now, and the only thing that I plan on playing if I have time is Fallout 3 New Vegas (been meaning to play it for years). The visual mods are SVE/Scatterer, but for that my existing GTX 960 should be fine. If I decide to upgrade, I'll wait for the GTX 2070 to hit.

Thanks for the reply. I'm suprised you went with AMD for your newest build, unless it has advantages for other things you use your system for. Single-thread performance has not been their forte as of late. I run out of RAM on a pretty regular basis. After a couple hours of KSP with all my mods, I'll be right at or over my current 16gb. 32gb should give me the breathing room and if I can run that great mod you pointed me to, even better. I'm still not totally sure on how to use it, but it seems like it will help. My current system is an i5-4590 with 16gb, and some of my larger Mun/Minums bases make the system slow to an unmanageable crawl with ~4 100 part count ships and ~5 smaller 20 part count ships all within physics range. It'll sink to 8fps, but also be so laggy and unresponsive that it takes forever to get anything done. My hard drive is a 256gb Samsung SSD 850 Pro, the old SATA kind, and loading anything takes forever. The scene switching especially is just maddening, mostly because I have to do it so often.

Hey guys, I'm building a new gaming computer and could use some advice on what's worth it to splurge on for making my KSP experience even better. Obviously single-core CPU speed is king for part counts, but what helps with other general performance? I'm hoping to speed up the loading times, the waiting when reverting to launch, transitioning to a new scene/ship, etc. Right now it's painful, 15-20 seconds or more when switching to new ships (Which is an eternity when you're just sitting there waiting) and 4-5 minutes to load the game. New computer will (probably) be: i5-8600K with a mild overclock (4.8-4.9GHz) 32gb of RAM, GTX 960 (holdover from my old computer, no reason to upgrade it because all I play is KSP) I run pretty heavily modded, many of the USI mods for manufacturing and life support, SVE, Outer Planets, etc. Is memory speed going to help? NVMe SSDs? What else can be enhanced to make KSP more usable and the loading/scene switching times faster?

I know bringing up CKAN in this thread is sensitive, but I think a lot of people are asking this question because according to CKAN your mod isn't 1.4.4 compatible because of dependencies on GC, which listed as only being 1.4.3 compatible.

FYI, RD isn't actively supporting EL anymore. The configs still mostly work but he won't be updating or maintaining active compatibility. The USInivers has switched to Ground Construction to provide build-in-place functionality.