Incarnation of Chaos

Would patching Wheels/Legs from other mods follow a similar structure to these? Or is additional work needed?

That's kind of my point; you're getting the rapier when it reaches the point of being least useful. But the engine itself is so powerful it can't really move.

1.6.1 because i don't have Breaking Ground purchased nor intend to in the near future; along with the fact that once i'm done with this playthru i'm likely going to go ham with a RSS+RO install and i want to get the most out of my Kerbin system experience before i plop the actual sol system in it's place. I also keep this install seperate from the steam installation so i can take my sweet time doing so; which is nice.

And at the risk of being further off topic I just want to say I get it; the FX series was a unmitigated dumpster fire and I didn't reccomend those CPUs then. Nor would I now, but AMD is back in a big way and absolutely crushes it for budget builds. And even the mid range; only at the highest ends do Intel actually have an advantage and it's shrinking every day.

Stock for stock it can; 5.2 is a golden sample so not really a fair comparison. But even a 4.35ghz 3600 is within 5% of 5.2ghz i5. But we're talking about hundreds of dollars for a 5% boost once you factor in K SKU, the Z- series mobo and the cooling solution. Which would be much better spent on a better GPU.

The Ryzen 3600 is going toe-to-toe with the current i5 and i7 lineups; and it's cheaper. Also 5.2ghz? Better hope you get a golden sample m8. At that point I feel like you're more RAM limited than CPU bound xD.

Get a i5 or i7 K series part used and overclock the **** out of it; 4.5ghz should be cake on air. The Skylake (6000 series) all can be overclocked with a modded BIOS via BCLK; any information you see saying it's been "Patched" or "No longer works" is false. But tbh; i would get a Ryzen 3600 or similar for general use because KSP isn't what you should base your build off of. And games are pumping more cores recently; the value on Ryzen just can't be ignored tbh.

They have the backing of 2K games; and plenty of development staff. Nobody is asking them to do it in a week, month or even next year; just start development on a long-term solution and however long that takes is fine. And what would you rather us do? Accept the status quo and never criticize their work? That's a great way to have a game go stagnant.

What? Heavily singlethreaded applications benefit from clockspeed increases!! Gotta bust out the i3-8350K and LN2 bois! Sorry OP not trying to dump on you; this is just a foregone conclusion that people who follows hardware should be familiar with.

....the compression stage would ignite the unburnt exhaust once it spun up; the preburner is feeding the gasses in so you can burn them. This is a closed system; we can't depend on an exposed intake to do the job.

And even if you tinker with the sliders it's not out of the question that the behavior depicted will continue; just somewhat slower. Or you get a "Dancing" plane like i had once; the sliders don't fix what's broken. And it's really, really irritating; i waste more time trying to troubleshoot these damned wheels than actually flying the aircraft. It's made me incredibly furious to make a plane, meticiously balance fuel/thrust, get the critical mach right where i wanted it and then spend 4 hours just figuring out the WHEELS! Oh and then literally minutes into the flight there's some issue that i would've only seen with flight testing that causes a RUD; that i could have seen literally HOURS ago if the wheels hadn't been so buggy. Iv'e walked away from this game more than i would like just because all of this made me want to damage hardware (No monitors have been harmed) Also duh; i get it's an issue with the way unity handles colliders. Guess what; plenty of amazing games develop their own solutions for things the basic engine can't handle correctly. The framework Unity provides isn't supposed nor intended to be a final solution; especially when you're a game like KSP and doing something literally no engine is built to handle. This is why Unity allows you to plug in custom code/modules; because they KNOW the functionallity they provide doesn't cover 100% of potential use cases. If they need a license for the source then i'm sure they could haggle with Unity for a discount; that's basically standard practice in the industry. But honestly i doubt they couldn't do a reasonable job with some custom Scripting; they'll never know until they try. And if they don't have the programmers then i'm sure they could throw a posting or two out there; there's plenty of them looking for jobs.

Already have that one because i was really tired of bolting on additional fuel mass; kinda feels cheaty though in the stock system. But it's not completely absurd either; idk it's weird. Thankfully my rig is so powerful i only lag when i do stupid stuff (Single launch of 1 megaton motherships, docking 200+ part vessels into one massive ship etc.)

I was seeing something about that the other day; apperently the value KSP uses is squared or something? Where as IRL it's not? Meaning KSP craft are able to generate far more lift in less area and FAR corrects this sending the scaling kinda out of whack (For stock).

I'm on 1.6.1 and there's not a single interaction between a wheel/leg and the ground that isn't making me nervous; 300 ton landers flipping end over end because of these blasted things isn't a rare occurence. It's literally the reality; meaning i have to kill speed (1.8m/s ideally) and massively overengineer my landers. And quicksave constantly; even with a slow approach and plenty of legs it's still a very good possiblity that my lander will magically rocket upwards at 30m/s after coming to a standstill and flip. Landing gear isn't always as bad; but between the jank collision and the still present possiblity of {INSERT SEVERAL HUNDRED METRIC FRIGGING TON AIRCRAFT} flipping end-over-end on load for absolutely no reason makes it extremely difficult to design aircraft. Which is a shame because between FAR and Mouse Aim i was really enjoying planes in KSP. Like i'm not asking for shocks and struts made out of adamantium; i get i need to match the load to the right # of legs and the right sizes of them. But these things literally unleash the kracken the moment they're used; and it makes a gameplay experience that should be exciting, thrilling and awesome into a stress-inducing countdown that is likely what i would nominate as the WORST thing about KSP. And making your landers lighter doesn't help; iv'e had 30 ton landers do the same dance as 300-1000 ton motherships. But if they wanted to add beefy Lander Legs (Stock Falcon legs plox) more wheels and even some Tank tracks (Which make more sense to me tbh) and tease out all of these issues; that is a DLC i would buy without hesitation.

I still remember one of my aircraft i was testing a long time ago; i had finally gotten the silly thing to go in a straight line and i throttled up the engines.... And for whatever reason the gear would lean left, then spring up and lean right; looking like some kind of cheesy 80's dance while screaming down the pad at 151m/s. I barely got her up before smacking into the ocean because i was laughing so hard; this game is incredible at times but that was one of the best laughs i have had in a long time. Then it ended up developing a massive, uncontrollable sideslip around mach 2 and imploding mid-spin. Which was completely my fault; not KSP's. But yeah the spring loading and unloading is pretty damn frustrating; real shocks bottom out or have a controlled rate of ascent. In KSP there's no such thing as bottoming out; they break or flip you into the next crater. Which i can't understand for the life of me; is it that hard to say "Don't exceed X rate of ascent/second"? In C++ it would be trival to do that; not too sure about unity (I thought it used C or C#?). Then bottoming out could just be calculated by the load, # of shocks and whatever math they use on the side. Once they exceed the magic number; mark them as busted and allow engineers to fix them instead of turning them into catapults. Then you could have a seperate number for just destroying them straight up.

Tbh i wouldn't mind if Squad sold literal piles of DLC; so long as that money wen't towards these issues. But it seems the big ones will be reserved for whoever picks up the torch afterwards; especially since wheels/legs are still broken. That's another thing that really annoys me; wheels don't act like wheels. They're more similar to skates with barely any friction; which is what all of these settings (Damper, spring etc.) are supposed to correct. And that's even before alignment; alignment is make or break for wheels but no stock tools exist to assist with it.

That's kinda why i want a windows VM xD; i rather just spin up the VM then spend hours messing with alternatives. And if it throws an error or something i can just terminate it rather than fuss around trying to fix it; as for how "Good" windows is we may have different perspectives because i'm comparing it to previous Windows OS. While you're used to others; so that's a factor. And back on topic i think the fact KSP is so heavily Single-Threaded is one of the worst things; they're stuck in a corner regarding it but still. I have 8 cores cranking at 3.0 Ghz and KSP uses 1-2 at most.

Tbh if i wasn't pressed for funds ATM i would be running Linux with GPU Passthrough to a Windows10 VM; the number of issues i have with W10 on a daily basis is just incredible. It's a good OS; but they lost scope of who they're building it for.

I'm going to say your best bet would be something like the J58; where even when the compression stage is idle it's designed to essentially become a ducted fan. Then you could have Bypass Tubes (Represented in KSP by a mode switch) that could go around the core and dump OX and Fuel directly into the afterburner; the only issue would be starting the turbine but if the air is inert anyway then that's not an issue. The "Afterburner" would just need to provide enough thrust to get up to at least Mach 1; where the effects begin to show. Only issue is i'm not sure how KSP would handle this; if it could at all. The J58 didn't have a hard cutoff; it just became more and more of a ramjet up until the flow thru the turbines resembled a ducted fan instead of a turbojet. A thrust curve could be written for that i suppose; i'm just not familar enough with it's engine code to suggest how. What you want IS possible; it's just hard to conceptualize.

On 7 it would slow down to a crawl and display "not a genuine copy" in all 4 corners.

I'm more saying that you have to have something to get the compression stage up to speed; that in a closed system that would basically be a rocket. Once started you can bypass the pre burner in theory and feed ox/fuel directly into the system. But that's all weight, energy losses to heat, friction etc; so basically you end up with a heavy, complex engine that I question if it would be worth it. I'll look into your rover though since it sounds pretty interesting. I just wish there was a software for rapidly prototyping jet engines sometimes xD The J58 used on the SR-71 almost obtained 50% of it's thrust from airflow at mach 3; but that's a ramjet/turbojet hybrid.

It doesn't affect performance; that's really all that matters. On previous windows editions they would artificially slow down the system to encourage you to buy a license.

tbh i think you would need some sort of "Pre-burner" before the intake of the jet engine; you can't just dump fuel and oxidizer into the intake and expect something to happen. You need flow to start the compression stages which then can become self-sustaining at a certain RPM; this is why on any airfield you're gonna see APU's they use to get them started (Sometimes these are intergrated into the planes themselves). So a modified Jet Engine that takes OX and LF would actually have what amounts to a very inefficient rocket placed in front of the intake; that would use a little bit of the fuel to create a stream of partially burned Fuel/Oxidizer and spin the turbines up. But this now presents an issue; because now the compression stages can pull fuel/oxidizer under their own power. So you would need a way to bypass the "Pre-burner" and allow the engine to operate somewhat normally. All of this adds weight, complexity; that's even before considering the turbine blades likely won't enjoy this kind of operation. I feel like a realistic "Closed" turbine engine would actually be far less efficient than you seem to think.

i like this idea; laythe as a violent, primeval world bathed with hot noxious gasses and immense radiation. The glow of volcanoes and various bioluminescent protists illuminating the night side.

Just go on M$ website and download the media creation tool; make an iso and use rufus to make a usb boot disk. When installing windows 10 just hit "i dont have a product key" Windows 10 works fine without activation; so long as you don't mind a watermark.