Digger412

WeirdCulture, You need to edit your original post title and change it to [Answered]. Digger412

Diche Bach, At warp levels greater than one (maybe four, don't remember off the top of my head), the KSP physics engine simulates objects as being "on rails". If you were to implement a way to allow acceleration at warp greater than four, the integrity of the physics accuracy would most likely degrade as the physics delta_t would have to be accordingly increased as well (unless you have a badass processor) to maintain simulation speed. Now if, instead of allowing acceleration under warp, you wanted to instead switch to a different craft or building, I could see this as being more viable. You would (hopefully) still be unable to increase the warp factor, but you could at minimum do other things with your time while waiting. I think the concern with this though is that if something goes wrong with your ion-powered craft (the course changes by accident or the burn needs to be adjusted, staging needs to be performed, Jeb decides that he's curious what an ion engine under power looks like and goes EVA only to get left behind), there is no way to place the fault onto the person at the controls since there was no one there, and you might not be able to revert to a quicksave before the incident (though running the game in the background already does this, it is assumed that you are still at the controls). Maybe there is a better way to accomplish this, such as pausing the 3D rendering, audio, etc., until a condition is met (like a SoI change or a certain time elapsed) and only performing the physics calculations necessary, then resuming normal operations. You still would not be able to adjust course with this suggestion, but it might be a way to getting around waiting two hours for a burn to complete. edit: Beat to it by Earnest. Too bad I take a long time to formulate posts. Digger412

DMagic, I've uploaded to Imgur and Dropbox my last two tests: 1) AMD 1090T 3.6GHz, AMD 6870, 1920*1080 single monitor 2) AMD 1090T 3.6GHz, AMD 6870x2, 1920*1080 single monitor I don't think that running the dual monitor tests would provide any more information than the 3.2GHz dual monitor tests provided. I was confused why the crossfired test performed worse than the single card test. It seemed that the frame rate variance was slightly lower in the crossfired test (which felt noticeable), but the average framerate was higher in the single card test. I may try a 4GHz overclock later. Digger412

Planetary Transfars! With gravity boosts hopefully? I made the count tied on accident.. :S

I have been running my simulations until the ship ran out of fuel. I had not thought that everyone was not doing the same. Oops. Digger412

marach, Was your physics timestep set to 0.03? I'm rather curious why there is a variance in the total number of simulation seconds. Mine averaged around 920 seconds, Slow Dog ran his in 1560 seconds, and ThePsuedoMonkey finished his at over 1900 seconds. Even though framerate, resolution, etc., differ each test performed *should* take the same amount of simulation time if the timestep is the same, right? Digger412

marach, Wonderful! As far as FPS goes, it does seem to average about 20% faster than my 1090T. It completes the simulation in half the time though D: Digger412

jfk and _Aramchek_, According to a cpu benchmark website, here are the scores for the processors tested so far (and the lowest- and highest-end AMD FX processors): AMD 1090T Six-Core Passmark score: 5709, Single-Thread Passmark score: 1218 AMD FX-6100 Six-Core Passmark score: 5405, Single-Thread Passmark score: 1194 AMD FX-6350 Six-Core Passmark score: 6980, Single-Thread Passmark score: 1493 AMD Turion II M640 Passmark score: 1723, Single-Thread Passmark score: 0929 Intel Core i5-3570K Passmark score: 7119, Single-Thread Passmark score: 2011 Intel Core i5-2500K Passmark score: 6386, Single-Thread Passmark score: 1864 Intel Core i5-3470 Passmark score: 6609, Single-Thread Passmark score: 1907 Intel Core i5-2467M Passmark score: 2293, Single-Thread Passmark score: 0934 (note to self: aligning columns without tables is a pain.) It appears that the FX's do indeed perform at about the same level as the 1090T, with up to an approximately 20% speed increase at most. And then Intel comes along and shows AMD the door. Digger412

DMagic, It surprised me as well. Based on the results of others, I would assume that I'm hitting a CPU bottleneck long before I hit a GPU bottleneck (antialised tests, anyone?). I'm curious to try running the test on my integrated graphics now as well. Digger412

DMagic, I've finished four of the tests, I'll wrap up the other four tomorrow. I think that there is a typo on the graphs that you posted of my data, so far I've tested at 1) 3.2GHz, 1x 6870, 1x 1920*1080, 2) 3.2GHz, 2x 6870, 1x 1920*1080, 3) 3.2GHz, 1x 6870, 2x 1920*1080, and 4) 3.2GHz, 2x 6870, 2x 1920*1080. No tests at 3.6GHz, those will come tomorrow in a mirrored fashion. Digger412

DMagic, I've completed the control run, and I'll be uploading the rest of the runs to dropbox and imgur as soon as they are completed. AMD 1090T 3.2GHz AMD 6870 8GB DDR3 Windows 7 x64 Resolution set at 1920*1080 fullscreen Terrain Detail High, SM3 Terrain Shaders enabled, Terrain Scatters enabled Rendering Level Fantastic, Texture Quality Full Res, Aerodynamic FX Normal Antialiasing Off, Pixel Light Count 8, Shadow Cascades 4 dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/i78d7zzpowgmqay/dBOI1E5c99 Digger412

DMagic, If you want, I could see about recording CPU, GPU, RAM, and GPU RAM utilization as well. Maybe it would prove useful in determining a correlation. Digger412

DMagic, I think this is a wonderful idea, and I'm surprised that a test such as this has not been performed before. Once I get home, I'll be sure to benchmark a few runs and post my results. I can tell you my system specs right now: AMD 1090T @ 3.6GHz (OC) AMD 6870 2GB (x2, crossfire) 8GB DDR3 Windows 7 x64 Resolution set at 1920*1080 I'll run a test of each permutation (OC and not OC, CF and not CF, dual monitors and single monitor), so that'll provide eight data points to start you off. Digger412

Ziggitz, Subassembly Manager v0.1.3 (on SpacePort, worked with KSP 0.20.*) is a pretty popular add-on that delivers the modular construction that you're looking for. I haven't tested it with 0.21, but it probably won't take long to get updated if it is not compatible. It works with the SPH and the VAB, so I believe that it can "transfer" constructions from one to another, and it allows you to organize your saved assemblies in a custom folder structure. (edit: Wow, only took me whole year to make my first post. Herp.) Digger412