boxman

That should be up to each player to decide. Forcing this on you would be a bad idea I think. I for example would like to have a quick save in case of game breaking bugs like having your spacestation/colony explode due to a bug or vanishing completely which is something that I have experienced myself. You can just not use quicksaves as no one forces you to use them. And surely immersion would be ruined more if your spacestation that you might have spent tens+ hours of building just vanishes due to a bug.

The trick is to have reasonable expectations. I dont feel like this update was overhyped at all. They have pretty much showed what we can expect from it thanks to those early preview streams/videos. What I am personally looking forward to are the crew management, parts and graphics improvement. I will be happy with pretty much any performance increase.

I just look forward to being able to play KSP again. Right now I have put my space program on hold due to the coming persistence erase.

It is really amazing how much they have changed over the years. I recall back in 90s when they were pretty much what we today call a small indie company that actually didnt only care about profits.

You would have to read and accept the terms for it to even matter anyways.. If EA somehow bought this game i would never ever do that, so any terms of service would not mean anything.

Was because of server issues though which they later said they fixed. And I dont see how a weekday will make things different... As soon as it is released you will have people spamming the download page.

I think it depends on how it is used.. If it is done for cosmetical/design reasons then i see no problem with it. But if you do it just to get the ship flying then i would call it cheating.

But he is right though... Not only are they slower, runs hot and have extremely short battery span, but you are also lucky if it still runs stable after a few years. Most if not all gaming laptops have such underpowered cooling that tiny bit of dust build up will lead to stability issues or kill it after a rather short time.

Which actually makes no sense for a planet that far away from the sun. Having liquid ocean is possible with head from tidal effects/volcanoes but that ocean would be hidden underneath a thick layer of ice like Europa.

And what if they double the performance?? People will just build bigger and then moan about framerates again. What we do now in KSP is not something the developers even imagined could be done. Most people only started building really big stuff after docking ports was added which was not very long ago. Performance has already noticeable improved for large ships/stations since then and I am sure it will improve more as devs have been saying they are working on increasing performance. But if you expect a physics heavy game to be anywhere unlimited then you are pretty naive. And especially from a damn alpha game..... These problems would not go away no matter which engine they used, as you will always eventually run into limits even if it handles multicore properly. And who is to say that unity wont get multicore support?? I personally bet they are working on that and that it will be in future versions of unity.

Then overclocking would make perfect sense. If you up the frequency you will get noticeable increased peformance with games that even use just one core. And you can just compare cpus like that. Even though newer high end cpus usually have more cores they are also often faster per core.

All monitors/tvs supports anaglyph 3d. If you cant use the nvidia 3d drivers then you might want to check out iz3d anaglyph driver which is free.

It still does make a difference though, so it certainly has to do something good even if it dosent do full multi core. If I set KSP to only use one core then there is a noticeable drop in performance/framerate on my system.

I was about to ask the same. I always use 4x physics warp for long burns.

That is odd because I noticed a difference even with 6 gigs of system ram compared to even 4. And of course cpu is a issue with this game...

They said earlier that they were looking into some kind of partial multicore support even if unity at it current state dosent allow full use of multicores. But havent heard any update on that in a while.

@Ming What exactly do you expect from a alpha game? As so many have stated no one even predicted that people would build ships using thousands of parts. And even with the litte optimization we have had since .17 there has been a considerable boost in framerates with larger ships. My last project was sending up a giant 1700+ parts ship/bus to duna and that was on a 4 year x4 phenom 2 system. That thread you linked claims it will lag after 300 parts, but yet i am still able to play using 1700 parts on a computer that is seen as outdated. 300 parts ship would give me pretty smooth framerates. And with time it might actually get multicore support which would give us a real boost. When would people be happy anyways? Because how it has been until now is that people just build to the new limits once it has been optimized. Who is to say this wont happen if it one day supports 5000+ before you reach that limit? No matter what engine they used there would still be such performance limits if they dont put limitations into how many part counts we can build. I just think people should stop expecting impossible things from a damn alpha game.

How can you even compare those two games? The physics they use are entirely different. The way KSP does physics due to it being a space simulator requires FAR more from your cpu. No amount of optimization is going to change that without sacrificing realism.

I bet it was just an easy/cheap way to illustrate instead of using CGI.

Last version had quite a bit of performance boost with large ships for me. And you have to realize that squad never realized that people would build ships with thousands of parts or that it was even possible to send such massive rockets/objects into space. And what do you think will happen with every performance increase? People will just build bigger and bigger and always reach that limit where performance goes down. If they make 1500 part ships run smoothly then people like me and most likely you will just start building 3000 part ships. It has already improved alot since .17 and i bet it will improve a bit with future versions as well. If you play this game like it was intended to then there should be no problems getting smooth framerate. This game runs acceptable even on my old intel core 2 duo when launching medium sized rockets.

His reply was not aimed at the OP but some comment from Deadpangod3 where he claimed the illuminators in KSP does not draw any electricity at all.

Try it with just some charged batteries and no pod or anything else that generates electricity and you will see that they do infact use electricity. You most likely had a pod or something that generated enough electricity to run those illuminators. At least I know for a fact that they did consume electricity a few versions back, so if they dont now then there must be a bug in the latest version.

I came across some archived twitch stream of jefmajor playing this game and immediately wanted to play KSP.

Even though I doubt this is about multiplayer, it should be possible to make it coop multiplayer and have the host control timewarp so that both games are synced. That way you can at least play multiplayer together as long as you are both "controlling" the same ship.

No expansions have been announced anyways. We who bought it earlier will only get it for free due to some people completely misunderstanding thinking that expansions would be free as well. For all we know there might never even be an expansions and even if there are it is years ahead.