SpaceChipmunk

Apologies for double post. This is only true with some games and applications. Some levels of AMD, normally their hex and octo cores are far superior to the i3, but then they are more expensive and really get destroyed by the Intel equivalents. I was running a 7 year old i7 and it completely wiped the floor with my brothers year old octo core AMD. I now use an OC'd i5 and it still outperforms his machine.

I since retracted the statement. But we were not talkin about an i5. We were talking about an i3 its little brother. The i3 has smaller cache and a cut down command set. Yet lazarus has pointed out that he has tested the two, so I am willing to concede the point.

You are right on that count. But we should assume he still wants to use his laptop

I'm sorry but you are too focused on the thread issue. While the physics is handled over a single thread (which Unity 5 changes) the application runs like any other application taking whatever thread is available at the time. I do believe it is stated in the EULA for Microsoft. I have A LOT of dealing with Microsoft when at work. When you have installed several thousand copies of an operating system and had plenty of issues that needed MS input you get to know little quirks in the way they do business. What makes you think that running an i3 quad will outperform an AMD quad by such a noticeable amount on a game that is quite frankly hardly a CPU hog? It may have a higher cache, maybe a higher FSB. But the difference is seriously tiny when you are running the game. Edit: Just noticed that you limited the threads on your desktop to make sure the cores were not an issue. In that case if there is really such a large performance hit, then I apologise. Edit2: Microsoft have withdrawn the ability to install on primary desktop and a laptop. I have been out of the lower end of the support field for longer than I thought it would seem a lot has changed in the past couple of years. So apologies again.

technically Microsoft allow you to install your Desktop Windows operating system on your laptop, however I am not sure if it matters whether you do it in reverse? Though it might be a good move to download an ISO of SteamOS which is Linux based. Make the most use of all that lovely RAM!

Depending how long you have, might be worth searching for promotional materials released by Squad when they were trying to market the game, or contacting their marketing department and ask?

To add my opinion to this debate. I work in IT and always build my own machines, plus I know Unity 5 quite well. This machine will do the job and do it well. But if you want to play anything a bit more advanced then you would need to get a new dedicated Graphics Card. yes Intel has better performance for their CPU, but for KSP you will not really notice a great deal of improvement between the two. It is a quad core, it has a lot of RAM. The power supply is perfectly fine. Even upgrading the GPU the 500 would be fine (especially if you go for nVidia rather than AMD). edit: you will not notice any difference in performance from this cpu and an i3 (An i3 is not an ideal gaming processor at all. Always best to look at i5 or i7) For the price it is good. But it will not future proof you. But in the future you could re-use parts (like HDD, RAM) in a better machine when you have more cash!

You could use the Transfer Planner mod to work out when the best time is to transfer to the SOI of the planet, then tweak it slightly to pass the moon. The transfer Planner also shows you the dV needed for just a fly-by without capture.

I do believe the right response is "suck it up!" No sympathy for your own error! Now though you have an excuse to build the Jebediah Centre for Under-Privileged Children AND name a Munar base after him!

I always attach probe cores to the top node of the smaller bays and never have any problems. Have avoided clipping anything through the doors as I figured it would cause issues. Generally avoid clipping as much as possible so Goo canisters are always unimpeded. The only object that has severe clipping is the RCS tanks, but as they are not animated I haven't had any issues with bays. Though I found they make good landing legs. Just land a base on it's side and open the doors, perfect legs!

Top 20 I would say. There are things that let it down, but re-playability is really fantastic otherwise people wouldn't come back after each patch!

Also relieved to not be a Scrub (Whatever that is)! Though the Imperial units is harsh. Some people come from countries (or an age) where imperial was all that they were taught. I regularly look at the distances and read them in both Km and Miles. It is purely due to my age and coming from the UK.

It is a pain, but I am sure the developers will add more LF only variants. If not, there's a mod for that.

Ok this may be a strange question. Were both ships in the same position each launch? Or have you tried with the offset one on the left and the non-offset one on the right? Wonder if it could maybe be something to do with unusually modelled effects from the planets spin or the angle of the launchpad???

By SSTO you are assuming Space Plane variant? After all I see no problems using radially mounted parts on SSTO Rockets

Congratulations on both getting all them achievements and having such incredible patience! As Sky_walker said above, it is normally about tier 3 that most people lose patience hanging around Kerbin!

It is also a lot darker from a solar panel point of view.

Could be temperature. Maybe atmospheric scattering??? Bit of a stab in the dark as to whether that is modelled or not?

If they just have to be dropped, which I don't like to have to do, I make sure it is in Solar orbit. worst case it comes back some day in the future, just unlikely to ever see it again!

I have lost a few returns to Kerbin with the default 500m. Just going too damn fast!

If you are travelling too fast and move too far from the prograde marker then you will flip. The air will be pushing you further off the marker so you will flip. The marker shouldn't be needing to catch up with you. Make small movements to the edge of the marker to make the marker come around to the direction you want to go. When in the really thin atmosphere it doesn't matter much how far off prograde you turn.

Fins can occasionally help, but not all rockets require fins. A lot of the time it is about either traveling too fast or not fast enough. Changing staging can work as well, keep the weight as high up the rocket as possible by dropping stages earlier. But generally I never put fins on my rockets if I can help it. Keeping below 330m/s below 10km normally solves most problems.

A personal viewpoint, just leave the debris and take the small cost hit. No point in worrying about debris unless you are launching thousands of ships to the same orbit and constantly dropping debris, even then it still shouldn't be a problem! 32-120m/s is a very tiny amount of dV. Is it really worthwhile dragging yourself up the extra few hundred meters either?

The husband of my Wife's friend... showed me the game when science mode was young. Waited for it to come out on Steam, then bought it the first day... Still no regrets... No matter how much my wife moans about me playing all night.

Not this century. Maybe one day. You really have to realise the distances involved here. This century ends in 85 years, it will take 15 years just to get a basic mission to Mars on the ground. Then they will take several years conducting experiments. So you are already looking at about 2040 before they have any solid conclusions over that mission, resulting in only 60 years left. Then they would have to plan for the next step, maybe to the Galilean moons, most likely Europa for water. Building the required infrastructure to send the mission there would take a couple of decades at the least! That isn't even half the distance required to go interstellar! By the end of the century I would say you are more looking at landing on Europa than even contemplating Interstellar travel.