itsme86

I know it's still a dev build, but I haven't seen anyone else mention this (I might have missed it): I notice a large FPS drop when roving around on a planet (with the GPS part installed) and turn on Anomalies. With Anomalies turned off the FPS drop disappears. What's more, the FPS drop seems more pronounced the farther I zoom in the map.

Is it just me, or is 0.20 a lot more forgiving in the rocket-falling-apart-during-ascent arena? Don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining! Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this. I seem to be able to get away with a lot fewer struts, and a majority of the time with no struts at all! The resulting lower part count in conjunction with the optimizations in this version mean I've had a completely lag-free experience so far.

I believe I understand what you're saying. At altitude X you're looking at a swath of land Y meters across. Let's say you're moving north, the path you'll be looking at as you move could be this wide: | | Let's say each column is 1 meter. If you had your scan resolution set to 10, it would look like this: | | | | | | | | | | | This leaves the "gaps" in the scanline. If the swath of land is 20 meters wide, you'd have to set your scan resolution to at least 20 to avoid having gaps: ||||||||||||||||||||| So, the key is to find out how high you can set your scan resolution without making it take too long to repeat (causing vertical instead of horizontal gaps if you're moving north) at your desired time warp. Once you have that figured out, you can determine which altitude to do your scanning at. e.g. If your scan resolution is 250, you move to an altitude that makes the swath of land (the width of the area that your scanline covers) is 250 meters across. Since we know the scan area is 16 degrees, you can use some simple trigonometry to determine what your altitude should be. Is that close to correct?

As we all know, anyone that uses quicksave is pure evil.

I think it's so the 0.12 TWR doesn't tear them off from the G forces when he fires up the engines. Cool tanker BTW. Looks like a lot of design effort. Wouldn't mind seeing your lifter!

Seems like we should have internal combustion engines for Kerbin and Laythe.

That's a gamist statement and I won't have it!

This one. Definitely this one.

Eeloo makes me want a 1000000x time warp *yawn*

The moon landing was a hoax. </troll>

My guess is that it has to do with differences in when/how you're applying different forces (banking, rotating, etc.) and not so much random chance. Although, that would be an interesting element in the game.

For some reason I feel like Jeb should be wearing a cowboy hat in that picture...

I think Kromey was referring to inclination. Eccentricity is how elliptical your orbit is. Inclination is angular deviation from the equatorial plane.

You'd want to make sure that the KSC is is currently facing the direction of Kerbin's trajectory (i.e. it's in the "front" of Kerbin in its orbit around Kerbol, kind of like the grill of your car I guess). This way your burn on your way out of Kerbin SOI is raising your Solar apoapsis.

Wouldn't this technically be a SSTMAB rocket?

I don't know. Could possibly be. PS3 hardware is like what? 5 years old now? But if it's expected to take long enough that they have to throw up a spinning little model and some text to read, it's longer than I want to wait.

Skyrim can take up to like 2 minutes to load a new zone for me on the PS3. It was so bad, that load times were the main reason that I stopped playing the game. I would avoid shops and miss quests simply because I didn't want to spend 3 or 4 minutes loading the shop and then the town again. There aren't enough spinning models and "tips of the this-1-minute-until-the-next-time-you-have-to-zone" out there to make it worth it. I'm not sure you want to use that game's methodology as your watermark.

I believe you when you say your game has crashed. I would just hate to see textures/parts/whatever loaded on-demand. That would cause little hiccups every time something came into whatever range was set for loading it. The VAB would be ultrachunky every time you went to grab a new part to place. I'd rather have the 30-second load time at startup that I currently have and just let things sit in memory.

You guys are old school, talking about RAM drives and such. Any operating system that KSP runs on today does its own file caching. If you have enough memory to create a RAM drive big enough, the operating system would cache those files in memory anyway without the RAM drive. You're reading it once from the harddisk itself either way. All the RAM drive is doing is making you copy your game back and forth between it and permanent storage. @Brabbit1987 My game never uses more than 1.8GB - 2.0GB of memory and I've never had an "out of memory" problem. Or a crash of any kind for that matter, and I've left my game running for 24+ hours. It seems to me that the biggest problem regarding slow load times would be the amount of RAM you have available. If the operating system has to resort to swap file use, you're gonna be in a world of pain.

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Any time someone says "X is really tough for me and I finally managed to do it!" and you come along saying "X isn't tough for me." it's minimizing it in my opinion. It's not like there was any constructive message in the post like "It's not really tough for me, but I can really appreciate your achievement". All they were doing was poopooing on the OP as I saw it.

What this person said. Also, please start using punctuation. The easier you make it for people to read your post, the more likely you are to get a decent reply from it. It also shows effort on your part which is especially important when you're asking people to do stuff for you.

And for complaining about walls of text in a giant wall of text?

Please don't try to minimize peoples' accomplishments. Are you really saying that docking isn't one of the most difficult things to do in the game? It incorporates many aspects of the game and seeing them all come together in a successful dock can be very satisfying, especially the first time.

Grats on the achievement!

You seem to make a habit of it (i.e. Elite Dangerous references?) Personally, I paid for the game because it's worth what I paid in its current form. Paying a price for something that you don't think is currently worth that price is a risk in any area of life; don't think the lesson is constrained to gaming. If $23 isn't a reasonable amount to pay for (according to you) months worth of game play, then eh, yeah. P.S. Why does one of these "you owe us, Squad" threads have to crop up seemingly every week? There are countless of them on the forum. Do you really think that posting another one is going to solve anything?