System Error Message

if only tweakscale could scale all blocks at the same time i could build it small and scale it as necessary. I like building in KSP despite not being skilled enough to do an orbital intercept. Sure there are vessels very big, You cant resize bdarmory though but building a viable combat capital ship with a hangar with the addition of life support for added realism and difficulty, thats fun. Not to mention you'd have to make it last in combat meaning using more structural blocks as armour. Tweakscale would let me use fewer parts to build it but the hangars just dont have space. I at least want to build something thats both pretty and would work realistically too. for kerbals, theres no such thing as overkill

One of the things i built in stock KSP, does all the work but has almost 700 parts So tweakscale would help to significantly reduce the number of parts and give better fps.

thanks, i use tweak scale to reduce the number of parts and also for better structural rigidity. So instead of having to place 3 fuel tanks i can just place 1 and not have the ship flop about.

After trying out mods theres just not enough space to build in SPH. Using tweakscale i can only fit the 2 of the largest fuel tank and a mammoth engine before i run out of space using 20m scale. My intention is to build viable combat capital ships using as few mods as possible while keeping everything as lagless as possible and with some added realism (like life support). I need to be able to fit big parts to reduce the number of parts in total. I've seen videos of building being done outside of the SPH/VAB so how can this be done using tweakscale at the same time? Using structural panels, if i placed a structural panel over a part of the ship, does it protect it during reentry if it is not attached to the panel? For example having a rover hanging from a panel acting as a ceiling but with panels infront part of the main craft that has some distance from the rover but with the rover visually covered from the outside using structural panels.

you can still clip parts easily. Just enable mirror mode and attach a part to a node like normal and you'd have 2 perfectly clipped parts. There are some uses and some problems with clipping. The first problem with clipping is that it creates torque or in some cases seems to propel you uncontrollably which can also make your craft less efficient. Other than using it to make something look good clipping can be used to fit more stuff in a small space without worrying about aerodynamics. Such as cramming as many mk0 or mk1 fuel tanks into a small cargo bay, fitting larger pars into a smaller cargo bay( it'd pass through the cargo bay but its considered to be inside the cargo bay so aerodynamic forces dont apply). Its hard to avoid clipping when trying to make something look good as most common this is done with wings to make all sorts of shapes. What really matters is that your craft is structurally sound or it will blow up if you accelerate time on a planet.

Are they in the same box/shelf?

videos are a collection of pixels too yet people find it entertaining. So no reason why they cant hook up. Kerbals being mysterious adds to the fun of the game.

a lot of what you guys say about building SSTOs arent true. I built a massive SSTO that isnt really efficient in the first place in terms of aerodynamics, has unbalanced thrust so it will spin without SAS and you need to use the RCS just to keep the heading on full thrust. The thrust to weight ratio also isnt good either. If you're wondering why i built such a thing, well i believe that if you want to make a massive spaceship that can land anywhere it must be able to land and take off anywhere without needing a launch pad, hence the use of a run way and single stage not to mention it uses liquid fuel engines from ground to space than the nuclear engines to orbit kerbin, only 2 thirds of the weight is fuel. There are a few very simple rules really to building SSTOs efficiently and a lot of it is less to do about aerodynamics, more to do about rockets and structural. First i picked the most efficient part for fuel/weight. You have the weight of the fuel which is constant, and the weight of the body. The mk2 body is not the most efficient fuel to weight but offers some lift which is useful but not as the main body. I just think of them as wings with fuel or that has better structure than wings alone. 2nd is to pick an engine with the best fuel to weight ratio but you have to consider the engine you use in the atmosphere and space. This means you have 2 or 3 sets of engines. You'll want engines that are the best in the atmosphere for take off (thrust/fuel and thrust/weight). If you use jets you must take into account the fact that jet engines require intakes and engine precooler (extra weight to factor in), engines with the best thrust/weight to go between atmosphere and space, and the most efficient engines for use in space (ideally, as it would take too many ion engines to push my massive SSTO in space). If you carry a convert-a-tron 250 you may want to factor in ore's potential fuel per tonne ratio as well. make your craft structurally sound. Clippings will cause it to move about meaning you lose energy to friction or other weird glitch causing forces. Shakes and things that are loose will only slow you down so make more use of struts as sometimes you may need multiple struts per part. Bias your RCS for lit in an unbalanced thrust. If like my massive ship your thrust is off COM you can use RCS to help stabilise and lift your craft up. It may seem insignificant but it can help gain some meters of orbital altitude while you're thrusting forwards (usually between a few to 100 meters but you dont want to lose altitude though). So just place some RCs on one side of the craft, and more on the other side. Aerodynamics dont matter, speed is king. If you can gain a significant speed at launch and just go near vertical you will have spent less fuel on the most expensive part of the journey. The more velocity you gain early on the more fuel you save despite drag (this is with liquid fuel engines from take off) as gravity is more significant than drag so getting less gravity early on means less fuel wasted. On my massive SSTO that uses liquid fuel engines from take off i pitch up to 80 degrees right after take off and after 10KM altitude i start to pitch down slowly very much like what a space shuttle does. My massive SSTO is on the previous page, It defies the way people usually design SSTOs. It does take a while to get to orbit though.

or perhaps in the cases of most, instructions are sorted in an non optimal way giving HT a big speed boost. This is apparent by the slow speed of most phone apps. It has nothing to do with the CPU, only how it is coded and compiled.

but kerbals could then have multiple kids so you could have a population growth.

fast single threaded CPUs arent really the answer there are many things that affect CPU performance so i'll put them down. 1) math IPC - how many 32 bit float math can be done in a single clock. This affects both physics, graphics and 3D. Almost every game uses this, in the past games used integers. Very few games use a different data type 2) Cache sizes. Physics performance is actually heavily influenced by cache sizes. The larger the cache the more physics can be stored there rather than ram. 3) RAM speed (more channels help too) 4) Cache speed (this is only applicable to 1st gen iseries as newer CPUs dont let you change this) also heavily influences physics speed too. I not only know CPU architecture but i have experience hosting space engineers. Space engineers is a physics heavy game but the dedicated server is single threaded. First i hosted it on an fx 8320 at 4.2Ghz, than i moved it to a 6 core 1st gen iseries xeon. At 2Ghz it ran faster than the fx 8320 at 4.2Ghz. At 4Ghz the xeon had double the client sim speed. So the first change is that intel iseries have better math IPCs than the amd fx by a huge factor. logic IPCs dont matter and logic IPCs are usually the ones measured. The xeon had more cache (12MB vs 8MB) and after overclocking i also had the L3 cache running near the speed of the L2 cache and this gave a huge performance increase. The faster bus, more memory channels, faster cache is all of what helped the CPU run faster so even if i leave the CPU at 2Ghz it doesnt matter as it has all that large pipelines to help keep it busy. Hyperthreading helps keep the CPU busy even more. Most instructions require 1 clock cycle of some thing else before they can resume working on that same old register/data. Also if data is being pulled from cache/ram than the CPU needs to wait so hyperthreading actually gives way more than a 10% boost, more like 30-50% as the instruction decoder and compilers will sort the instructions in the most optimal way to reduce waiting. an invalid instruction order will just mean the CPU would have to start again and that wastes cycles. Its not a matter of AMD vs intel or such, its a matter of how well is KSP compiled, how much bandwidth does the CPU have between various things such as cache and ram. CPU can be pegged at 100% and still do nothing. More CPU frequency doesnt linearly increase the speed either. What newer gens offer is more bus and ram bandwidth really and probably a cache thats a bit faster than the last gen. you can always test this by getting a 1st gen xeon as those are cheap and overclocking them by 50-100% of their speed. Dont forget to have good cooling too and to overclock both the ram and cache. you can quickly check using memtest as it shows the various cache speeds too. The LGA 1366 is basically a budget overclockable intel extreme.

perhaps we could have a mod where kerbals can reproduce, so if you had multiple kerbals on a long mission you may end up with more.

for fun i built a massive unbalanced SSTO, i gets into orbit despite its weight and is capable of carrying things in its hangar. It weights more than 1.2KT full and above 400T empty and is an fps killer with almost 700 parts but is equipped to perform every task and is made using only stock KSP. You can download it here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B01oBAU-nNuMaGNudGd3N01zNGc

if your rover is wider rather than tall you can rotate an mk3 cargo bay. One thing you can do is have the rover into 2 parts and combine them as you deploy them using only stock parts. This means an 8 wheeled rover too with a short wheel base between each rover.

using only stock parts i have by making a very slim rover to fit into the mk3 cargo and landing on another part of kerbin. My spaceship already does every task so the only thing i actually need to carry are satellites with data relay and communication.

harder to examine from the pictures it has nearly 700 parts and is huge. I did bind some keys though, so key 1 opens all mk2 cargo bays, key 2 deploys most deployables that are in the cargo bays and 3 deploys ladders for getting onboard on ground.

Hi im new to KSP and have mastered building in stock KSP. I dont really know how to play the game properly as i cant figure out how to do intercepts and to plot a course. I have no issues getting huge irregular crafts into orbit with some extra fuel. I've seen videos of KSP and some impressive mods like being able to resize parts, fuel priority, scripting. I'd like to know what mods are highly recommended to try and what major mods dont work with the current game version. I'd also like an opinion on an irregular spaceship i built using only stock KSP. It gets into orbit although with a long nuclear thruster burn.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B01oBAU-nNuMaGNudGd3N01zNGc/view