LoSBoL

To be honest, I've posted them before, but The total eclipse of the heart fitted perfectly

Ah jeeze.... Now you've done it... Forget about a graphics card, we might have bigger issues... My head could be bitten off after this post All the games are physics simulators, including KSP. These physics simulators are all bound to single thread performance and don't profit from multicores or hyperthreading. That basically means you won't profit from AMD's Ryzen bang for buck, because the performance gains from AMD are in the fields you are not going to use... AMD's Ryzen rips Intels apart when it comes to multithreading. But equally prices Intels perform much, much better when it comes to the physics simulators you want to play. And that includes platform costs like mainboards and memory. Please don't take my word for it, YouTube is your friend here, look up the mentioned games performances on Intels and Ryzen's. YouTube is spammed with these video's, and it really is a difference of day and night. I'd recommend going for Intel on this one... If your main use would not have been physic simulating games, but most other games and/or content creation uses, Ryzen would have the benefit. But in this situation its pretty clear to me... An Intel I5-7600, preferably an I5-7600K if its just 10 dollars or so more expensive, even if you're not intending to overclock, it's single core performance is about 5% higher than the non-K An B250 or a cheap H270 chipset mainboard if not overclocking, a cheap Z270 mainboard if you do want to fool around with overclocking. This combination would cost you between 300 and 350 dollars (If i look at Euro prices), a bit more then Ryzen 5 1600, but the mentioned games run much better. Like legoclone19 mentioned, I would get 16GB ram if you could budget it in, DDR4 2400 would do The mentioned games are CPU bound, and not Graphics bound, an GTX1050Ti would do nicely. As you mentioned, with slightly toned down graphics settings. All in all you could have a very, very nice running machine for wat you want to do with it, all within or slightly over your budget.

Then who's gonna bring in the money? really not helping here!! Hahahaha, I can see this working, for some, maybe

Sounds like KSP is pretty much mimicking real life careers here

whohooo!! It's here!! https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/6/9/15763980/samsung-chg90-49-inch-ultrawide-curved-display-monitor-huge-excel-gaming Must resist raiding savings account... Help me out here guys, how would you explain such a purchase to your wife?

a 570/580 is a perfect recommendation as well, I'd buy in a minute as well if I needed an upgrade. They are pretty futureproof if you want to stay in high quality mode for at least a few years. Advice is usually pretty hard to give, you easily tend to advice within your own frame of reference, especially when you have little to go when somebody just says 'build me a computer' and have little to go on further. I have it to, I tend to buy, and therefore tend to advice 'second hand', while there could be damn good reasons for somebody wanting to buy new of the shelf.

I started out with sandbox, just to get a feel for the game and capabilities, build a huge spacestation in LKO and Minmus, after that I did a Science game and to finish it off I now play Career. Haven't been playing that long compared to many others, but I like career since it adds the funds and contracts, So I do some contracts here and there to fund the upgrades off the KSC and to finance my projects. I can imagine that if you've played long enough then career might feel to 'science grindy' and that a career game turns into a sandbox game, but I'm still having a bunch of fun. I still start up my sandbox game to test here and there, and do an occasional challenge.

I really wouldn't know It's the first time I've heard of Jeb being immortal, but then again, I'm not playing KSP very long to know this, maybe someone else can answer that one? Docking Port Allignment Indicator, never leave home without it.

I saw your question, sorry, In haven't got enough experiences into high performance laptop's and their priceranges. I don't think I'm qualified enough to give good advice, but somebody's bound to come along who can advise. I however do play games on my laptop, but I use my desktop computer to run them and stream them to my laptop. Which actually works great. In that way I can use a high performance gaming rig and a cheap laptop without a dedicated graphicscard, which doesn't run hot, doesn't sounds like it wants to take off, and runs very long on a single charge. I can really recommend playing like that, but you're bound to home to play games. So it's not 'on the go' go' gaming.

Hmmm, find me a game that won't run on a 1050Ti. It might be that your personal preference has a demand for more eyecandy from games, but the 1050Ti is still a gaming graphicscard, one that sells like hotcakes because of the great price/performance on an entry level gaming pricepoint. Yes, an 570 or even 580 also have good performance/price value, but at an higher pricepoint. It comes down to preferences (and budget), what do you accept on a graphical level? Do you occasionally play a few games? , or is gaming one of your main hobbies? and what would you want to spend on it? Wanna play KSP with some graphic mods? then even a 1050Ti is indeed more then enough, even an 650 or 750 would do fine.

At what difficulty settings are you playing? If it's 'normal' than you can expect Valentina to respawn in the Astronaut complex in two days or so. Just look it up in your difficulty settings if it's the case for you. Some might enjoy 'that mess'

You should ask if there are some factors that could change your advice and not make to much presumptions, there could be something it those answers that helps in the advice you can give. Few examples: *It indeed might have been a laptop. *The work computer might have been in the 'officeroom', which could result in 'is streaming an option?' *The work computer might have had an massively impressive CPU. then it would be hard to beat with an second machine and forking out for it *The work computer would not have satisfying graphics, easily solved with an better graphics card *I don't get any work done with KSP on my work computer *The work computer is not mine, and I can't alter anything on it. *The high end work computer actually is an old build with an E8400, which nowadays is pretty much good for... office work So depending on the answers, there could be a completely different advice that would suit best. What games do you entend to play furthermore? Legoclone put toghether a nice machine, but if your main goal is to play KSP and 'ocasionally' take up a game or two, the RX570 would be overkill. To me that is an 'enthusiast' gaming card which is great if you want to pick up gaming on a daily basis. A good price/performance card would be an GTX1050TI, that will 'blow you away' graphic wise compared to what you have right now. You won't be able to play the newest games in 'the highest possible' graphical settings, but it will play all games nicely. You spare out about 100 dollars, which you can spend on an 250 GB Solid State Harddrive, and you don't have to wait for a graphicscard that has a shortage, and because of the shortage, will be even more expensive due to it.

TT mentioned in their takeover statement that the History Expansion would come this year. So much fear, so little foundation... As for 'the deal', I think the decision to sell the Kerbal franchise was made long ago, most probably when SQUAD found that the console port was more then they could chew. No company would have bought it at that moment for 'a good price' from SQUAD back then with FTE still in the picture and no foresight of it getting better. No company would want to buy it when it had 'open ends' that only brings work and trouble. So they first needed to ditch FTE and get a new port by a respectable company in the works. In the mean time KSP development went in to 'maintenance' and 'added resale value' (localization) mode so to make it, A. more attractive to TT, an B. to get as much money out of selling it. These deals are not made in a few weeks time, the terms were probably set long ago, there just had to be some work to be done before they could make it happen. Another reason that might have contributed for SQUAD to sell the franchise is the vocal and demanding 'community' which needs/needed constant attention. Not 'a' new game, 'many' new Kerbal franchise games, that's where the money is. Might be microtransactions in those new games en genres.

Just an observation maybe? Forum blowups, great derp, SQUAD and Dev's trying to perform balancing acts on thin lines to not upset their delicate community, that had to be handled with kid gloves? At least that's what it looks like to me reading this thread, I'm glad I wasn't around back then and missed all of that...

What's the reason you don't want to play KSP on your high-end work computer? Reason for asking is because if it's your own property, why not make it suitable for gaming as well?

Is Steam under the 'remain to be DRM free' 'etc' summary? I think you did meant it to be, but just to be clear on that before some other wild story commences.

That's a very good tip, thank you!

Your feelings could be right, they were in the low to mid 20's when running 4c/8t and 4c/4t, and while just one or two less at 2c/4t, it felt jerky.

Jeeze, I'm so glad that I invested in an laptop with a waterproof keyboard and full glass touchscreen.... That's the second time that I have to rinse it down because of coffee spewing all over it from laughing Note to myself, don't drink coffee when reading forums

We are really not that far off in conclusion. I just think you might be answering the wrong question because it's pretty much common knowledge that KSP will bottleneck on one thread with massive partcount, no need to prove that further. A better question would be if KSP profits from more cores, and the answer to that question would be Yes to my conclusion. In a nutshell my conclusion would be: *Highest IPC and clockspeed you can get *At least 4 cores, 6 or 8 core utilization needs to be tested *Hyperthreading doesn't do anything, might even do more harm in utilization than good IMO the topic title doesn't do justice, because the amount of cores that can be used do matter. If I see an I7 4c/8t hitting over 45%, and 4c/4t hitting 85% overall loads I can safely conclude that KSP utilizes more cores than said 2 cores. Especially when running 2c/4t is bottlenecking my game earlier and lags. I'll try and get around to testing some more, but it'll take at least a few days till I get to it. Might be a silly question, but are you running Windows's powerschemes in 'balanced' or 'power savings' mode? You really should run KSP in 'performance mode', that makes a pretty big difference in KSP performance.

Seems like you have some quoting issues as well by leaving out my first sentence. The youngest will also have to live and learn, usually their parents give some guidance with that.

That's great to hear! You are welcome, and welcome to the forum! I find it very nice that your first post is a word of thanks. Have fun on the forum On a different matter, I've seen some interesting mods and have some ideas to further 'develop' this tutorial, just need to find time to test some more. Will get back on it later.

I replied with the wrong quote, didn't come across that way, stupid me The way you keep ranting made me wonder what personal experiences you might have. But in all seriousness, the wahleing that some people are unfortunately prone for spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars, and companies that keep accepting those 'payments' do have moral issues. The people that fall for that, in that way, and don't learn from experiences probably have even bigger issues.

I was a bit sad when I overshot KSC... Till I turned around...

So... Which game(s)... and how much....?