shand

hehe KSP killed my last laptop too (also an i3) caused it to overheat which caused a reoccuring overheating issue.

*wobbles hand* we are venturing into dangerous ground here define performance (don't but you get my point) Depending what you are doing AMD processors tend to get more bang for buck. Here is a random benchmark test: Sourcel Of course as mentioned a few times, single thread performance is more important which gives a very different story As for i5 vs i7: i'll be honest i didnt look into them as the i5 isnt suited, and the i7 is WAY out of my league! Hyperthreading is only helpful if the program supports multicore - it doubles the "number of cores" (virtual cores). this obviously wont help for the same reason choosing an 8 physical core chip is a bad call in this situation. so my summary is: intel are better performance; amd are better value PS: yes i did exagerate the pay twice as much bit, you'd be getting a very bad deal - but you are looking £100 to £175 or there abouts for very similar chips, just one emphysises single thread, the other multithread. @Codepoet: Jumping from my i3 to my Q6660 (or was it 5's i've got myself very confused on this now), is a noticeable gain in performance, although my i3 is a year old laptop and my Q... is a 6 year old desktop - so jumping to the i5 (about 40% better than my chipset last i checked) should blow you away

I'll try not to have the same discussion on two threads As i said: not so much an upgrade but a sidestep - need to replace broken components (MOBO for one thing) and theres no point getting a new MOBO just for that chipset, theres absolutely no upgradabilty in that socket, AMD is more bang per buck, so they look like a good option for me, also i dont just use my machine for KSP - i often have all 4 cores above 50% utilisation. My point at the OP was, there are alternatives - i believe the AMD processors are in line with the chip he listed for similar price, although, you might not get all that performance if mutlicore doesn't appear. That said OP doesnt seem to be a builder, so perhaps this was all a bit pointless What i WOULD say directly on topic and relivant is: my dell xps has lasted me 6 years with only minor upgrades and runs KSP absolutely fine,

oh an i5 will definately beat that chipset; but at twice the cost (ish; and less cores, which is more important for things other than gaming; including playing multiple games at once ) My point was more caution towards emphysis on single cores, and good performance (not OMG AWESOME, but good) is possible on a budget machine my new build will cost me a grand total of approx £300 just transferring the GPU and HDD across. So economy is good. although most people have intel, so probably no need to get a new MOBO on upgrade. (my MOBO is literally falling apart) there are multiple right answers, with many variables. for best raw performance on the current version of ksp (no true multicore support) you should go straight for an i7, beyond that its balancing variables

I'm stubbornly sticking to multicore dispite the fact very few games i play make use of it. quite a few use 2 cores now - but my current 4 core processor very rarely gets utilised, however, shifting the affinity of cores can give a massive boost, forcing your game of interest to run on a specific core(s) (my third/forth are my strongest) compared to the rest of your system, really takes the load off. i find bottlenecks like background processes really suck life out of what im doing, especially one when of those background processes is a minecraft server So yeah, i'd be cautious of aiming for a high per core throughput, even if KSP itself can only make use of one or two (i think atm it can offload slightly onto a second). But then, I said 5 years ago that a quad core was the way to go over a dual core "because full multicore support is just around the corner" (generally in computing, not ksp specific). Personally my next machine (next year or so) will be a 6 core, dont see the benefit in the 8 core beasts yet, despite my optimism. (Current machine is a Q6660 or something, Intel Quad Core; what im looking at is a AMD FX6450 or similar - both have real-life performance only just below an i5 with current software)

I'm looking to "upgrade" my PC - its in quotation marks because really its replacing failing components rather than improving the performance much (going up around 30% across the board still thghoU) this is the build im looking at doing: http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/user/Sh4nd/saved/32k2 AMD FX-6350; Radeon HD 5770 1GB; 8gig RAM I say this mainly because: intel is the go to answer for high performance - while an AMD is a LOAD more bang per buck. My current intel chip (Q5550 i think) is sufficient for 500 part ships, and thats less powerful than the chipset im looking at.

Personally use the manoeuvre nodes. plot it out so you have a closest intersect - then move the node around the orbit. works especialyl well for intercepting a circular orbit from a circular orbit - the more ecliptical the orbit the more fiddly it is... Keep moving the node and you'll see the effect on the the intercept. otherwise get some paper out and do the maths! or i beleive a few mods can do the maths for you (mechjeb and engineer redux come to mind) hope that helps!

Interesting question. First, to aknowledge the good points made above: yes the kinetic energy is the same (assuming same mass and average speed and all that), and yes its fair to say that blowing it up shouldnt reduce the probabilty of bits hitting you and would just spread the bits out. shotgunning will result in more of the material being burnt up in atmosphere - so more affect there compared to the more terrestrial affects of a larger material impacting the earth. Both will have a similar effect on the oribt/spin/inclination of the planet (due to the same kinetic energy). so really it comes down to, what is more devastating A) massive thermal energy increase in atmosphere or relatively slight thermal increase in atmosphere but massive physical impact. A) will result in local extreme climate changes, high winds (very high, 200mph+) and general weather being terrible for a time, depending on how big the little bits are will effect the affect at sea level (smaller bits = more energy in high atmosphere so less affect at sea level for example). things like jetstreams may be disrupted, and we can expect global weather patterns to change drastically. perhaps best to remain inside/in a bunker for a month or so. a single impact will result in... simply put, a massive explosion. so initial shockwaves, earthquakes globally (if its big enough), expect semi active volcanoes to join the party. weather systems will be disrupted, but less than in A. now factor in the massive amount of ash/debris thrown up, a lot more debris than in A and a lot more ashy. this will result in a massive ash cloud, again dependant on how big it was, this could well result in temperature drops that last years, also a noticeable decrease in sun light penetration. so a noticeable reduction in crop yields. Also air travel would be a no-no for a long time. those in europe will know how disruptive that one volcano was. So to summarise: in my opinion a single impact would be a lot worse globally. A is more local, B is more global. Feel free to say if i missed anything from A or if i've got anything completely wrong.

Hmmm, NASAFanboy, fraid the burden of proof is on you, as you are the one making the assertation. I do kinda agree though, we have the technology, but we dont have the experience. without the experience we wont be able to fully utilize the technology and as a result it is not feasible. Seret: having the technology and having it tested, available and rated for manned flight are two completely different things. For example mankind has the technology to have an unmanned car drive safely on the road. the technology is partially (well, very really, but still not enough) tested, avalible but not rated for automated unsupervised action on public roads. Equally we have the technology to make cars. however i havent tested it, dont have the parts to hand, and it wouldnt be rated for use on public roads because a moron (me) would've made it.

simply put. to my knowledge they play no part at the moment and are more or less placeholders/concept showing of whats to come. for now there is no way to change the bars (except editing the save file i imagine), but that may well come in the future. ooo that may not be strictly true, i seem to remember hearing once that they effected the responses seen in IVA.

if i was you - start with your original idea - make a molecule of water, that in and of itself would be a highly educational tool and would be a lot of work to develop nicely. then from that point you can take the existing mechanisms and keep on going. Perhaps something of this nature - in order to use a molecule you have to have made it. so you make a molecule of water, congrats! now you can spawn as much water as you want! want to make some carbohydrates, well you've got hydrogen atoms, so you need to make carbon atoms, make one, and then you can spawn more to create your carbohydrate - now you've make a carbohydrate you can spawn LOTS of that carb! Assuming you can build in the various interactions at a fundamental principle level theoretically you can then make ANYTHING - but computation power might get challanging. SUMMARY: make your game as you first described it, if you find you want to develop it further, then go from there.

I'd pretty much agree with all these. this is a hardcore case of space RV. my top tip would be to ALWAYS leave 1-5% eva fuel for the final boarding action, that way you would only need to get a ship within 100m or so and stabilise it and jeb could float over. Personally i'd use a probe core with the lightest manned cap (with no kerbal), RCS at either end, and a small efficent fuel rocket >>>AND PARACHUTES<<<, put an extendable ladder and a couple of flat solar panels on as well. draw up along side so jeb is right next to you, set the ladder out, and set it to slowly rotate so the ladder will hit jeb, he should be able to grab on and get in the pod. PS: threw together a prototype, the aim is to keep it light for + cheap launch + manueverable +Cheap in rcs. with some gentle persausion i got jeb back in suprisingly easily. you may not even need the ladders. but it is a tough RV oh, and pack a parachute... i forgot (dispite putting it in capitals) Nudging in... Alright, in you get! Oh, erm, deploy wishful thinking?! (luckily i made it light enough that it actually managed to land with that diddy rocket!) PPS: do spoiler tags not work still!?

it doesn't surprise me in the slightest - plan for the best, prepare for the worst. every bit of scientific funding has "stretch goals" YOU are in charge of what missions you do in this game - you arent the engineer, who would be fired if they were building in stretch goals, you are the overlord of the buisness. you will accept missions (or maybe just get money for fulfilling them without accepting them, whatever) and it will cost money to send things up - i dont see a longer mission costing more - there may be time locked missions, who knows. basically, you are a private buisness, you get money, you spend money, hopefully you do something that earns more money along the way. you aren't NASA - otherwise what you achieve would have no real impact on your funding (funding didnt increase drastically just cause they got to the moon and it definitely didn't increase when they got curiosity on target). Anywho: the career mode is a lil baby of a feature (although a massive amount of work and awesome for what it is!). You dont go to a nursey and say "Yesh this kid needs to be seriously reeducated", primarily because they arent finished yet! their teachers havent even started on spelling their name and you want them writing their second book!? come on dude! but also because the educatation they do have will be shaped by their future lessons and life, they'll change their name 3 times before uni and change their dream job 4 or 5 times and probably go through a stage of not even knowing. so to summarise: yes, career mode as it is really really isnt finished - its the technical backbone of the gameplay to come. it is literally a tech tree - more is to come. Imagine you are playing the dev version of Civ 5 - it has the tech tree but no AI...

Entirely false in every way - you do not work in science clearly. If your project exceeds its target specifications you do not get fired - you might not get extra credit but any science you perform, even if it is outside of the original parametres is still valid. For example, the rovers on mars are well outside their expected mission spec - yet are still being run and the science is still having an impact. if curiousity had ended up landing on mercury by some huge mishap (like the ones that fire rovers off target all the time) then the science would still be applicable. also as stupid_chris says, this is just the backbone of the career progression in terms of technology - the devs have stated at least twice how they propose to deal with the missions and suggested a way currency would be an impacting factor. I would suggest the techtree will be developed more, probably to keep you around kerbin a bit longer, but either way the first few missions will be within kerbins SOI - and complition of a mission will likely not stop you using the craft, so you will then be able to complete the next mission. IE: "acheive orbit" followed by "fly by of mun".

And nearly every game is finished... i suspect difficulty levels to be the absolute last "feature" to come in, simply because they can be set up as a "scale this factor, and this factor, and this factor" and they really arent important at this stage of development. It could be argued that at this stage of development going through the tech tree quickly benifits squad in that it gets a thorough testing! Also: this is PART of career mode. the tech tree part... Imagine you were playing early parts of civ, they havent introduced the AI yet, so you can make your cities and do the tech tree... that is where we are at with KSP at the moment. SQUAD has already strongly suggested what they'd like to do regarding missions and "achievements" unlocking them. (get to orbit? great now you get offered missions to put satellites up!)

limited cash and proper costing of parts is definately going to happen, dont know how they'll sort income out. i would imagine you get a upfront payment for a mission that is just enough to cover costs and then a reward for completing it - perhaps some other sources of income will come our way too. wait and see the crew properties currently have no use - but either they will have a use, or they will be got rid of. they are definately looking at "training" your kerbanauts - if thats ground based or reward for successly flight based we dont know at the moment. also impacts we dont know - i would imagine stupidity will effect EVA based stuff, so a really stupid one will fix a wheel such that it'll break in 2 minutes, and a smart one it will be good as new. courage i would suspect to be the opposite of panic so if something breaks a low courage kerb may not respond for 5 minutes or something, while a high courage will respond better? wait and see.

*havent actually started playing 0.22 yet so pinch of salt required* Struts to hold those engines in place, best bet would be to have 1 stage per engine until you have the bi- tri- quad-couplers avalible. your centre of mass should be above your thruster, make sure you have enough gimbling engines to provide control! what stage are you at at the tumble, the gravity turn is clearly triggering it, which isn't suprising (drag on the front of the craft pushing it down) so perhaps a slower turn, just moving 5degress beyond the prograde vector might help. i'm guessing you are still in the first stage? @Seret: i'd think if it was tumbling there was insufficent thrust vectoring? too much tends to create oscilations (not sure how the new new new SAS copes with that mind)

No = Very little space, espeically LEO isnt empty. there is no clearly defined "whelp, thats the end of the atmosphere" altitude. in fact ISS skims through a particularly "thick" bit of atmosphere, they have to feather their solar panels to reduce drag! but yes, this is where the "bit of adjustment" comes in Generally A) is the relivent pattern, with induced spin creating a like pattern and larger structures able to use gravity gradients to lock in

keep practicing More seriously, why dont you show us a specific craft and tell us how it misbehaves?

ideal thrust to weight depends on the current conditions. THEORETICAL IDEAL is On the pad: infinite. During in atmosphere flight: 1+ whatever is needed to counteract air resistance + whatever is needed to accelerate so as to maintain optimum speed (generally speaking the opposite of terminal velocity - so terminal velocity going upwards) During exoatmospheric flight: infinite. of course. thats assuming the extra T/W doesnt cost you anything. in real terms i agree with your findings: higher the better til (-)terminal velocity, then 1.4 all the way up. obviously you have to compromise at times with a lower ignition T/W and throttling down as you get to the end of a stage. above (i think its around) 20k 2 t/w is good, and above 40k its largely irrelivent, i tend to have 0.9 on ignition for my final stage. My tip would be to try the same experiment again using your 4 T/W rocket and follow my theoretical ideals list. kerbal engineer gives atmospheric efficency - try to keep that between 95-105% by throttling and you'll get a good idea of whats optimum.

the attitude you place it at will not be maintained ANYWAY, attitude of the craft can only be maintained when it is the active craft - using mechjeb you can maintain its attitude automatically (dont have to set it as target, look in the smart ASS tab, and set to i think its radial to inerta?) but the moment you swap away teh attitude will drift. this is due to orbital mechanics. the ISS for example, only maintains attitude due to gravitational drag (+other) any other body that does not have an inertal spin on it will not maintain attitude. in KSP all rotational inerta is lost the moment the craft either enters time warp or is no longer active. remotetech i beleive ignores steric issues to have the dishes pointed at what they need to - the attitude of the craft is irrelivent (and thus so is the positioning of the dishes). not sure about interstellar, but i would imagine the power output is EITHER maintained from last active time, or just done on a maximum possible assuming all panels are gaining power maximally. otherwise the best you can hope for is to have a "flat" (2 symetry) and align it such that the panels can rotate to get maximal efficency.

Just a small add on here - for the really old one you can replace the battery in the game easily and cheaply. i did so and started playing yellow (my first one) again.... i then quickly remembered how annoying having pikachu follow you everywhere was.... its very... the answer is very.

Tiny add on - a landing marker would be difficult to predict without running some aero calculations (espeically once they redo aero!), so how about an impact marker - assume no atmosphere and leave that to the pilot to compensate for.

well at the moment in the ISS there is a strict fitness regime. cant remember the details - but they already have to deal with these problems. rotating modules are a good idea - but hard to do. at the moment (mostly because you need a large radius or a very fast rotation, bigger radius is expensive until we start using inflatable/reshapeable space thingies.

also, i suggest turning off practically everything in the graphics menu anti-aliasing and v-sync help quite a lot. scatter- BE GONE!