dave1904

Maybe waiting is better, after all its the worst thing in the world to invest into hardware and 6 months later something major hits the market. Cheers man.

No its not OC atm. I did test it in the past but the performance gains were around 2-5 FPS. Not really worth it and besides that my watercooling died recently and I do not want to invest anything in old hardware. To be fair the 4770K is still a great cpu considering its age. If the hype around ryzen is legit maybe but my past experiences with AMD were just not great. Forgive my ignorance about AMD CPUs but the ryzen 9 3900X is 100 euros more expensive than the 9700K and 1 year younger yet still seems slower than the 9700K with single core performance. Is a good CPU to compare the 9700K with? I have not been following the CPU market in a a while and just started looking today. I was just looking at https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/best-cpu-for-gaming/ to start off with finding gaming cpus. Edit: Maybe it is best to wait. I just dont think the ingame effects will be anywhere close to 30%

I'm not complaining I do hope that OPM will still make it to KSP2. I love the mod along with trans keptunian.

I was thinking about 3 or so. 10 would be nice.

I'm thinking of replacing my old 4770K with a 9700K. (9900K is to expensive)I am kind of unsure about how useful it will be however since for the most part I am playing KSP. I only build PCs for the games I play. I run a heavily modded version of KSP and FPS are good considering 123 mod folders. FPS can be as low as 10 on some complex craft however so I am wondering if the single core performance boost of an 9700K over a 4700K will make much difference. The single core performance boost is said to be around 30% but I have no idea how that will translate into KSP. Anyone have any experience with different CPUs of the current generation vs Haswell?? I know the engine limitations and how mods are but is there any relevant umpf to be gained considering it would set me back atleast 700 euros for CPU, Ram and mobo. Sooner or later I will need to upgrade and am basically wondering if I should wait for the next gen?

Its possible but improbable. If you want to believe it you can.

If there is life, it would actually most likely be very similar to life here on earth. The universe is made up from the same elements as earth and we do know the fundamental building blocks for life. I do not need a planet with an ecosystem. Far to complicate. Kerbin has kerbals and we imagine the rest so one or even two animals would be more than enough for me if it were to be added. As for space fairing civilizations. I would love a KSP little big planet crossover but sackmen just do not have the right biology to exist in the kerbal universe

performance shouldn't be an issue. I dont mean 1000s of animals but maybe a heard of 10 or so that can spawn close to were you land. A stable platform is all I want myself with axial tilt. Axial tilt is my personal must have.

Since we will be able to discover other star systems in KSP2 what about life? I am sceptic about the topic in real life but KSP is all about dreams. What would you guys think about finding some animals on other planets? Not space fairing civilizations but space cows or something like that. I don't need something complex but a green planet somewhere with random animal models walking around. I have been looking at all the topics and so far have not found a single topic about it. Am I blind or is life not important in KSP?

Why? its not like steam is going to run out of copies on day one.

Out of curiosity, will Bluedog Design Bureau be ported to KSP2 if the game is not trash? I know its a long way away but this is one of the mods along with near future that would stop me playing a new game if they ceased to be supported

Technically we already have 3 or more probes going interstellar. There are plenty of ways to colonize the galaxy in a surprisingly short amount of time with non ftl travel but it is pointless. Without FTL there would be no point other than human survival in the galaxy. Our existence is irrelevant. Everyone on earth will be left to die anyway so they will not care about it. Maybe I am selfish but I do not care if a few frozen human eggs go anywhere beyond SOL. One of the reasons I have my doubts about civilizations is that considering its relatively "simple" to colonize the galaxy with enough willpower we have the fermi paradox. Sure intergalactic travel is something on a totally different scale but I am still unconvinced. The numbers you point out are sadly not that impressive if you take everything into account for complex life to exist. We can argue about this all day since all the evidence we have is based on assumptions anyway. After all the numbers I choose to believe are obviously not my own. Its the same for you I guess. For most people. We all choose to believe what we want to believe. I like the idea of dead space so I will always be biased towards rare earth arguments. Something about dead space sounds so calm and non chaotic. What does it matter anyway. Both of us were born far to early to know the truth but born just on time for KSP Anyway when it comes to interstellar in KSP I say let them do it. As long as there is some scientific idea behind it that is not absolute garbage its ok. It all depends on where we draw the line on what nonsense is. For some the kerbal system is just as much nonsense as a wormhole and I know its for scaling but my point that everyone has there own idea of what ideal is. I do not care that much because of what this community is capable of with mods.

I mean the concept of wormholes. For ftl they are nonsense. The reality is that ftl is impossible anyway. Anything that will bring kerbals outside the kerbal system in a practical time is completely speculative. I would rather have other systems than none at all however. The reality is that we will most likely never leave the solar system. There is nowhere to go anyway. The more I read about space the more I'm convinced we are alone. Sure "primitive" life might exist but earth is simply an anomaly. Hopefully I'm wrong. Rocket science has not really gone anywhere since the moon landing anyway.

You could use that argument for every nonsensical scientific proposal. Edit: I shouldn't say nonsensical because wormholes are not nonsensical. I was just talking about the argument

its the internet man. All you need to do is say you made the first mod. Someone will believe you :p

Its actually not that hard with life support. You can get 1 years worth of life support on you ship with minimal mass. Your only limitation is that you are afraid it will make things to hard but it won't. I makes you missions far more interesting because planing missions to outer planets is something that should require planing. Besides that these options would be easy to toggle. I do not care if they add it anyway because mods will make my perfect KSP like they always have. We all have a different vision on what is best.

I play career only because it adds a bit more challenge but I get what you mean. Once you have the mun capable tech after 30 minutes you can go everywhere. Its the same in real life however. SaturnV could basically go anywhere in the solar system but the life support couldn't. Life support adds to much to ignore. Its the only limitation in space travel. If human beings could survive without food and could take as much radiation as possible we would already be on our way to alpha centauri because we have infinite time. I wonder how they will handle interstellar travel. If life support is not added what is stopping us from just timewarping with primitive mun rockets to other stars? It might take a few hours of real time time warping but people have done crazier with ion drive burns in game already.

I get what you mean and I love scan sat myself but the devs do make a good point when it comes to science and the "casual" vanilla gameplay. That's time acceleration. Whats the point in having timed experiments if you can just skip time? IMO time should be treated as a resource in KSP because it is arguably one of the most important ones in real life space travel. (Not the technical challenge but our biological one )I never liked how time was irrelevant. Life support should also be added. Maybe I am wrong about this but sometimes talking to other gamers I get the feeling most casuals do not even get to the mun or even kerbal orbit so adding deeper more difficult things like life support and possibly even kerbal life spans would not really make much difference when it comes to accessibility. For all I care the life spans could be 100 years but time pressure needs to be added. Maybe a hardcore career mode would solve that problem. I want to be forced to launch multiple missions at the same time.

I've plan to play it again sometime but I figure the longer I wait the better it gets. Have not played since before planet landing patch.

Why? Visually it would be great and orbital mechanics are still the same. I would love it. A system like eve that is hardcore.

I don't know how promotion works and often do wonder why games get a trailer followed by months of silence. It's very common. Rockstar has used the same tactic for years now and it seems to work. Teaser followed by 6 months of silence, then push the release back 6 months and finally release 1.5 years after the first trailer. Would love to know why.

would be cool. I actually played portal 2 on pc coop with a friend on his ps3. Worked fantastic and it was so nice to be able to have the pc fps and play with friends. The funniest part is that the connection was one of the best in an online game ever. I never expected that from the first PS3-PC cross platform game ever I believe.

Oh I really wish I had your confidence. To many games let me down over the years

Is that really true though? I often wonder if its really so called engine limitations or developer laziness. If ea chooses to make everything on frostbite they will make a lot of money in the long run. Mass effect andromadas issue had nothing to do with frostbite if you ask me. It was a development problem and people just decided to blame it on the engine. Forgive my ignorance because I have no problem with unity but what part of KSP would unreal not be able to do as well? Its clear that if you are developing a racing game that you would choose a proven engine but I just think it's more the simplicity and licensing that makes unity so popular. Not a bad thing. Better simple than complicated. I want ksp to stay on unity because porting mods will probably be quite easy. Well part mods at least . I no nothing about scripting (proper modding) unfortunately.

rumor has it KSP3 will be developed by rockstar north on the rage engine.