steffen_anywhere

Yes, I am running KSP at 1440p already...

Kerbal Alarm Clock is good, but to be honest can you not calculate that yourself?? It is easier than calculating thrust to weight ratios...which is very easy still.

Congrats, I'm now playing KSP for almost a year... Today we did orbital mechanics in Physics in school. Was fun, but still hard.

Here's last night's build. I was too tired to upload it, so I'm doing it now. Here are some pics: Capable of reaching a stable orbit just above the atmosphere. To deorbit, use last few dV to dip into the atmosphere and wait for hours until you actually deorbit because of orbital decay. Has 66 parts, but you could probably remove a few struts and get below 60.

Ok I understand now... And yes, I wouldn't go with AMD for a computer like that. Intel however doesn't offer octacores for desktop. In fact, they don't offer them at all.

@ CaptainGiblets: And you still play? Great dedication... @ Rarity: Now please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not sure about this, but I thought that The relationship between Clock Speed and actual useful processing power (whatever that might be i.e. Floating point or other) have a logarithmic relationship and therefore overclocking beyond some point will not actually have much effect and only the power consumption will increase exponentially as always. That might be the reason...

Ok I'm bored, not tired even though it is 12:30 AM here in Shanghai right now and I will start a speed build right now ... Opening KSP right now.. Don't expect anything beyond LKO, I don't have too much time... Maybe a better one later.

3GHz is the clock rate/frequency, which governs the speed of logical operation on your CPU. It is not linked to the number of cores. On your Core 2 Duo, both cpu cores are clocked at 3GHz. Since you have two independent cores, they both do work more or less independently at the same time, both at a frequency of 3GHz. BTW, clock speed doesn't determine you actual processing power. For example, a Pentium III processor (single core) from somewhere like 8-10 years ago (don't remember sry) might be clocked at 1.6 GHz (is that clock rate even realistic for a Pentium III, sry I'm 17 so not familiar with old hardware), but is easily beaten in terms of processing power by an Apple A4 (800MHz-1Ghz single core ARM-Risc) in the iPhone 4. Anyways, all I'm trying to say is that clock rate doesn't have a direct relationship to performance... PS: This reminds me of Amloris (on these forums), who has an AMD octacore processor (or 2 quad core don't remember) and has a custom built ethanol-based refrigerating cooling system. His processor(s) are OC'd to 5GHz and cooled to something like -20 degrees celsius... Just sharing this cuz it's the most extreme system I've ever heard of. Not like eight cores help at all when playing KSP.

@ Captain Giblets: Wow, sorry to say that but my iPad mini outperforms that easily (to be fair it is the new one with A7 SoC, the fastest ARM mobile processor on the market right now). How is the KSP performance? It should be hardly playable right? Man I feel sorta sorry for you... @Pds314: To what stats did u upgrade it? And if you didn't upgrade your CPU, you're still gonna have a bad time i suspect. Minecraft is quite CPU intensive compared to what it looks like (not exactly sure why). I suspect horrible 32-bit Java code...

@ turkwinif: Well that's what it is really Haha @ Vending Machine and Jas 1126: Really? That's not too expensive for a computer like that... I thought the GTX 780 Ti already cost $1000.

Interesting...Never heard of any of the other ones. Only stock sounded familiar, probably because of the fact that you'd always have a stock one...

I have a large list of mods installed as well... So for me it takes about 3 mins! I usually browse these forums or 9GAG (no judging plz) on my iPad. That way it doesn't slow down the loading process.

Is that the 13 or the 15 inch? I don't know the CPU identifier numbers in my head, so I can't tell if quad or dual core... Anyways, pretty impressive performance for something I'd classify as an ultrabook! Really impressive computer overall I think. I'd like one too!!! How come all of you guys build custom machines for 3k bucks (maybe a bit less I know...).

Thanks again for sharing...all of you. @ turkwinif: I checked the performance of you integrated GPU (a little better than my MacBook Pro's 320M since it is newer actually). 512 MB VRAM are sufficient. More really is not needed for that chip...It would not improve the performance. But is your GPU really limiting your KSP gameplay? No! BTW, it has approx. 170 GFlops of processing power. Just saying that your GPU probably won't be limiting your KSP gameplay that much due to KSPs nature...

Eeerrrrrrrrrhhhhhgggggg... Dat Computer....PC Envy kicking in:blush: How much did that cost in total?

Well it depends.You have integrated graphics. They usually share system memory i.e. RAM as a frame buffer, but sometimes have a small dedicated buffer, which is much faster (we're talking around 64MB maybe of DDR5). Dedicated GPUs have their own VRAM onboard, often very fast. This is the much faster and better solution. However, if your GPU is not too powerful, more than 512MB is really not needed... I'll do a search on how powerful that GPU is later and reply based on that. In Intel systems the shared VRAM is determined by the total amount of RAM on the system. An Intel HD 4000 chip would use 512 MB of 8GB i believe. If you were to upgrade your system to 16GB, your Intel HD 4000 would utilise 1GB. Sorry you'd have to Google about your system, I' a Mac user and not familiar with AMD/ATI.

Nope, sadly doesn't... We'd all love that to happen but due to the outdated implementation of these things in the Unity 3D game engine, this is rather hard, or impossible, to change at the moment. Squad said they won't convert to a different game engine, which is understandable give that they are not Gearbox or Ubisoft, and they can't 'write' their own as that would take longer than creating the actual game itself. So we can only hope for Unity to get an update so that Squad can just port to the newer version of Unity (which would be mud much easier than any of the other solution and the only one likely to happen).

With integrated graphics, there wouldn't be an actual discrete graphics card. So I'm curious as to what that actually was? Just an adapter to have all the connection on i guess (assuming that that is what you meant by potato LOL). And yes the HD 2000 was just awful... In fact so awful that Apple skipped that generation of Intel processors entirely because they got MUCH better performance on the latest Core 2 Duos. My MacBook Pro was actually affected by that too and I'm happy that they chose to go that way. So yeah, Geforce 320 M is said to offer something like 4 times the real world performance as the HD 2000 counterpart even though the thing is a year older. Only after HD 3000 and onwards, Intels integrated chips got acceptable, but those were STILL slower than the 320 M. With HD 4000 they got quite good and with the new Iris and Iris Pro, Intel built something quite amazing imo... Anyways... As long as your motherboard supports it, go for a budget ATI or Nvidia card that fits your computer and the performance will be magnitudes better still. You should be able to disable the integrated one, or use both at the same time then...

Computer specs plz... No seriously I don't think any computer could handle 20,000 parts due to the way in which KSP handles its Physics. If we could use hardware accelerated opencl for those physics as well as multicore support, that might happen on a top of the line Mac Pro. Please no Mac vs. Gamers hate here, Thank You very much BTW: Bitcoin mining is pointless on a normal Computer... Litecoin however, is viable

On that note, I've got tons of mods installed, that's also the reason why my KSP uses around 4GB of RAM alone (and therefore everything I do in other apps during playing, if not still in the wired RAM, is quite slow as it needs to page in and out a lot from and to a comparatively slow hard drive) Game performance isn't affected too much by those mods, but the game takes an estimated 10-15 mins to load up (obviously the real time it takes is more like 3-5 mins, but that's still long).

I know it is not going to happen, but I'm still hoping for NVidia to use KSP as a showcase for their PhysX, in which case the development would gain a hundred programmers, millions in funding and the result would be physics running properly on multicore processors and on GPUs using NVidia's PhysX technology. The graphics would get a huge boost too. This would mean that even a little slower machines (not saying horribly slow, those wouldn't be able to handle it anyways) would outperform a state of the art gaming PC running the current game... But, as I said, not going to happen. BTW: The meme above has so many grammar mistakes, I'm not even going to start on it. It doesn't even say the message properly LOL.

My goodness, I already love it. So all that you do is basically live on a space station and upgrade stuff to get money or some comparable value and then upgrade more and develop, tech tree like? Is that the way I should understand that game? Anyhow, it is obvious that Squad, which consists of a handful of people working on KSP can't possibly implement everything. I do, however, hope that some day we will be able to work inside a space station like NASA astronauts... (In-game)

Hehe.. "Not sure if my PC is too slow and I can't play because of it, or if my docking technique is just miserable... :)" No but seriously that is not too much... Not bad either (given the price...) Thanks for sharing tho

Oh cool, thanks. I didn't know... @minerman30: Yeah as I said...(I feel like my computer is slow... but it IS a laptop after all) Thanks for updating though.

Damn!!! Where did u get that HUD from I want that!