Saberus

As others have said before, using lines/bytes/heisenwhatzits as a metric for what's put in as effort for an update is a poor means to compare. I could care less how many MB it took to add in the science modules and the tech tree, they could have stripped down the code for all I care, the end result is a huge amount of playable content. I don't know about you, but I bought in at .14 when they split the paid version and the demo, and was pleased enough to have spent the money for what I got. Every update since has just been icing or gravy to me. This might be an alpha game, but it feels more complete than the watered down trash pumped out for profit by the big name companies. And there is absolutely zero obligation for them to complete the game. If you think otherwise, I feel sorry for you. Those stats do have a subtle purpose, they affect how the Kerbal reacts to their current situation. And you act as though that one picture was the update... there's so much more, or does that not count because they denied you a clear shot of one image? This is still and alpha game, until everything that's going in goes in, there's no way to form a reasonable metric of minimum specs. The developers have even stated the minimum listed is just what 'feels right'. Also, raw speed is NOT a metric for end-all performance. All it can be used for is relative performance within a generation of processors. Example: Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 (Launched Q3'08) clocked in at 4 cores running 3GHz. Passmark gave it an average benchmark of 4228 Intel Fourth Gen i5-4430 (Launched Q2'13) clocked in at 4 cores running 3GHz. Passmark average benchmark: 6289 Same number of cores, same speed, better results. The i5 outperforms for a variety of reasons, better bus speeds, more efficient pipelining, smaller die, all help make it better. And there's also the consideration that the game, like many others, is built on an engine that uses only one core. 580 parts is a hell of a computational load, every joint between parts has to be computed, and every joint that connected to that joint. Each part adds a load that increases quadratically, not linearly. Even an 8 GHz rig supercooled with liquid helium is going to cry for mercy after that many parts.

There is a line in the persistence file... but it really does spoil the fun. I tried it and was able to just unlock everything.... then it's like, "What's the point?" Build your way up, way more fun. If you have to cheat, do it just the once so you know how the tree is mapped, so you can 'aim' for the parts you really like/feel you need.

Unfortunately the only means to fix anything but parachutes and rover wheels is to edit the persistence file as you suggested... but that could cause issues.better to collect and store what you can, recover the vessel, and try again. If you have multiple command pods or cockpits, each one can store a crew report, and one EVA report and sample per biome, IIRC. Each one would also act as a battery of sorts, allowing longer operation without solar panels.

My proudest moment is from back before 0.18.4 (0.17 or 0.18.2, I think?) When after derping it up and stranding my Kerbal in orbit, I had him bail out and use his eva pack to get him aerobraking, then landing alive.

Landing... at least landing intact enough to take off again..

I was going to say this as well. The good old "get out and push" method. Technically gives you infinite delta-V, so long as you don't get stuck in gravity wells.

I have a Lenovo Z585 with an A10-4600m cpu (2.3GHz quad core, turbo up to 3.2), and an extra Radeon 7760 that's crossfired with the cpu's built in 7660. I get decent framerates of about 20-30 with standard settings.

Sorry for the delays. The Capt. is starting his run.

Once you unlock them, an intake and a jet engine pointed straight up would make a decently efficient generator for a landed module. At least on Laythe and Kerbin.

A Quik Trip 52oz cup with some cold hazelnut coffee... I'm a goner.

Let's try to explain without math. Let's look at the two extremes in the rockets, ISP-wise: The Mainsail and the LV-N. The Mainsail has a vacuum ISP of 330. One of the lowest ISP of all the liquid rockets. Only the tiny probe rockets and the Mark 55 are lower. So it burns fuel like mad... but unlike those weak engines, this thing packs a whopping 1500 Nm/s of thrust. It's like an 18-wheeler for rockets, it may drink fuel like a man dying of thirst, but it has enough thrust to get just about anything moving in a very short span of time. Short enough that flimsier designs can be ripped apart. The LV-N has a vacuum ISP of 800. This is the highest ISP of the liquid rockets. Only jet engines(which can't operate in space) or the ion engine has a better ISP. But it only has 60 thrust. In space, it can slowly thrust and build velocity and use just sips of your limited fuel reserves in deep space. This long burning with low thrust can keep even the most delicate designs from being damaged by the stress of acceleration. On the ground, the ISP is different, accounting for a myriad of factors that will go unnamed, for there are way too many. On the launchpad, the Mainsail has an ISP of 280. Fractionally, it's actually pretty good, not as much loss as most engines. It was pretty much designed to be used as a lifting stage, so the shape of the nozzle was made to be used in atmo, with a shorter, wider nozzle. Look at most other engines, the nozzle is narrower and longer than the Mainsail if they were made the same size, as in space the perfect nozzle has an infinite length (At least for a de Laval style nozzle). The LV-N on the pad is a lousy, inefficient engine with an ISP of 200. It will suck down even more fuel than the Mainsail to make the same amount of thrust, and it will take a long time to make that thrust, as it's making only 4% of the thrust the Mainsail can. If you look at it, you will see it's the opposite of the Mainsail, a long, narrow nozzle optimized for deep space use. Long and short, the ISP is not the end-all feature to look at, it just gives you a general idea of fuel efficiency. Thrust, weight, TWR (Thrust to weight ratio) are also factors to consider. But the difference between atmo ISP and vacuum ISP will give you a general idea of which engines were meant for lifting off, and which were meant for deep-space maneuvering.

I've sent a message to Capt. Sierra a day or so ago.

I wonder if anyone has the time to make Spaceball I or Mega Maid... Because I wanna recreate the movie now...

Capt Sierra, you're up. Sorry I haven't been on top of things, life got a little stressful.

So much this. If you're all centered up in the SPH, as soon as you start burning fuel your CoM is going to creep fore or aft. Another thing to consider is stall angle. Even in KSP's default drag system, if your nose lifts too high and the angle of attack on the wings is too great, the CoL changes, the amount of lift generated changes or drops off completely. having not seen your plane I would recommend adding reaction wheels to the rear of the craft to give you a more centered "magic torque" that will help you pitch the plane even if you go into a stall. If your craft is nose heavy and all the torque is in the front, its hard to lever the rest of the craft. It's just as bad if you're tail heavy and all the torque's in the front.

I've added credit to xoknight for the MMUs.

THanks, I'm quite happy to see this little project actually becoming a big endeavor! As for the EVA suits, chrischambers has supplied the station with some MMU's, check back in the thread. Were these what you were thinking?

Da. If you have the room in the part limit, some xenon storage for Briansun's fighter and probes. Yes, and there are Sr. ports, and I believe there is one normal port on the MMU dock. There may be some more normal ports once the docking arms are in. That would be cool. And if anyone's ships has the extra fuels to make sure the station is topped off, please do so. Also, for moving the station, if any have ideas and want to show their engine modules, we can decide what would work best.

Yes. All chutes can be repacked. Just send a kerbal on EVA and right click the chute.

I've always wondered if it was possible to use a double refrigeration setup. In other words, have a refrigerant setup on the CPU/GPU/anything else practical, but the radiator/condenser coils are nested inside another refrigerated space (Like a mini-fridge), and the condenser for that space vented elsewhere. Would that allow the primary refrigeration system to force things even colder? would the whole system have a better delta-T than just the primary alone? even if it worked... it would be a serious waste of electricity.

Alluvial O

I'd have to say they share the part limit. The number of parts is getting pretty high, and it's slowing the game down for almost everyone. It is no mods, and when the time comes, we'll select a pilot among the volunteers.

Might prove useful in repelling rogue asteroids or derelict vessels. I would advise that you may have to reduce the part count, and you may need to send it with a custom dock that has extra xenon stores, as the station does not supply that.

Ok, it looks like we've hit a small snag, with two people trying to go at once. Capt., since you have issues getting the file, let's wait for Brody, and then see if the station is still within the capacity of what your system can handle. Brody, just a reminder, the part limit's at 50-60, the lower the better. Not everyone has a DL980G7 sitting at home. (If someone does... yikes) We already have the AMMES and modified Guppy Orbiters that serve as tugs of a sort, as well as crew rescue/rotation craft. We still have some room, and we have two major things not on the list: 1. Lab module (to be added when .22 comes out) 2. An engine module for the actual orbit change, and for station keeping. A tractor/Goddard style would work best for a station this size, since it puts less stress on the docking ports. (This will be last.) Also, if you have a hefty machine, we will need a pilot to place us into the final parking orbit of 10.5 trillion meters.

That second one is like a self-mobile power node. O_O