renniSaint

Ok, thanks for advice! I swapped out the PSU to a proper EVGA unit and decided the 960 is probably worth the extra 100 bucks, also changed the ram over to a unit without the fins and they also happen to be lower voltage so that should be great for heat and/or OCing. No, hyper-threading is the weird proprietary Intel SMT virtualization thing. I just mean regular SMT. From what I understand even with Unity 5 each craft in KSP will only run on one thread (with other tasks pushed off to other threads). So there wouldn't be really any advantage to having say a 16 core machine over a 4 core with the same clock speed.

Thanks for the advice! I started with a 960 in there but I was at about 1100 for the whole thing which seemed a bit much. Plus, honestly, I really only play KSP and do some amateurish web design and photo/video editing so high GPU performance doesn't seem likely to be an issue for me. Also found this very interesting (if ultimately completely circumstantial) video comparing the 750 Ti to the 960 that showed you really don't ever drop much below the threshold of framerate mattering with either card: Fair point about SSD, I was hoping I could get OS X, a Linux build and all my programs on there but maybe not. :/ I checked the specs and it seems I should be ok to do a Hackintosh with only some (ok probably a lot) of cursing at the gods. The PSU is kinda awful isn't it...? I might have gone too far in trying to stretch my dollars there.

Hi All, So I read a fair bit of this thread but obviously not all. Right now I'm playing KSP on a Mid-2010 13 Macbook Pro with a 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 16gb of 1067 mhz ram, and onboard Geforce 320M 256mb graphics. This is.... non-ideal. Like, 5-part-rockets-yellow-the-timer-on-the-launchpad, kinds of non-ideal. So, I've decided enough is enough and I will break down and build a PC for the first time in about 15 years. I've got the parts picked... I think. Wondering if anyone has any thoughts. I have a spare 1TB WD Caviar drive that I'll slap in for additional storage but I'm hoping to dual boot Linux and Hackintosh OS X Mavericks and possibly triple boot to Windows 7. Anyway, check the specs and see what you think! Love to know if I'm not thinking of something or if I should be changing processors to a more multi-threadable cpu with Unity 5 on the way...? I heard contradictory info that even under Unity 5 each craft will still only run on one thread. Which means KSP will still love high clock cpus. http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/PublicWishDetail.aspx?WishListNumber=21307829

Yeah, definitely not random failure. That's no fun. But it would be a fun way to add to add game play and achievements to gather without adding another "number" like money, science, etc. On am unrelated note t-minus 4 minutes on Falcon!!!!!

So, I'm sure this has probably been suggested about a billion times before and I tried to see if it was in the forums but I am not a forum jedi so I apologize if it has been said. One of the most fun parts of KSP is blowing things up right? So, what if there were missions with objectives to "test Part X to failure"? Maybe even under certain circumstances? Like overheat this part, or smash it. Which leads into the other part of my idea. Which is, maybe don't give all the information on components until they have been used in such and such a way? i.e. For a landing strut it says "weight: 0.1, drag: ???, crash tolerance: ???" Until you actually fly it then it will tell you drag, and smash it and then it tells you crash tolerance. This could be really great and add all sorts of information to each parts shown performance data. Could really make the game feel even more huge than it already does.