hellion13

I wait. Ive only played Career mode twice, once in .25 and once again for Beta. After watching Scott max science in only a few missions, I tried it and succeeded, Twice. After that it was just to see what was possible for me. Experimenting with inf. fuel, going as light as possible with the largest engines. Try to wring as many G's out of an airplane before FAR/Near/stock air tears it apart. Or bring it as close to 1 FPS as I can without crashing with ridiculous constructions that tend to mostly explode.

Everything thats been said points to Venera 9, probably waiting for all 8.5 clues to be found before confirming. Thats what I would do anyway.

Feel like a noob. Cant get this to work. Parts show up. I stack a few, arm button shows up but doesn't do anything. Decouple the craft and the arm button goes away. It does however make a good Stargate look alike.... Kinda want to see what a vertical one does to a Kerbal who jumps through......

First experience with tweakscale was through an abortive RSS build i was failing at. Between it and all the other mods parts didn't match up anymore, nothing scaled right. Since then I've stopped trying to make Orbiter out of KSP and started playing KSP. Tweakscale has become one of those mods i cant live with out. Instead of 5 or 6 engines, now i have 5 or 6 classes of engines. It turns a singular part into a class of parts. Rockets look more streamlined, planes dont have weird odd sized wings.

A lot of new stuffs to be added to the game with this release. I see a flurry of patches after release. Though they might surprise me and put out the most stable release ever, who knows. Won't know till I load it up the first time. Looking forward to loading up steam and having to wait for an update to download.

Building the simplest single seat jet i could imagine and getting my first real success with the airplane aspect of KSP. Maxing the G meter doing corkscrews around the tower at ~300m/s. Jeb had a huge smile most of that flight.

When i build a manned rocket, once it works reasonably well, I tend to go nuts and strut together a massive copy paste rocket with 200 kerbals on it. This serves no purpose other than having big explosions, and I try not to revert. My lost list is in the thousands....

Ive always thought that the decoupler mechanics were a bit finicky like the landing gear. If not just right, tanks will be spun off wildly, explode, or barely go anywhere most times all three. Need to get them as close as possible to the center of mass do the part thats being decoupled, then play with the sepratrons until it goes the way ya want it. Adding too much decouple force to a decoupler can cause fuel tanks to explode, I've experienced this with both KW and NP parts when using odd fuel tanks.

Never mind.

Best ive been able to do with the MK3 parts is make a passenger liner. Holds 136 kerbals and makes flights to the Island runway at around 90m/s and crashes on the runway because no fuel. Mk3 parts need more/better engines in order to get to space from the runway, maybe even larger wing pieces(I imagine some will succeed). Though with the new editor functionality i see lots of nasa style shuttles coming. Other than that, I really don't know. Its up to Squad.

I have to say, whatever download server problems they had for previous updates arent there anymore. I just happened to be looking at my Steam library when KSP picked up a download bar. Gave me 12.3 mb/s downloading it, twice... the 33 mods i had installed broke the initial download, had to reinstall.

Its like watching your kids get ready for their first day of school....Or going to a theme park for the first time and seeing the rides pop up over the hills while you're still on the highway.

64bit was mostly unplayable for me. Got hung up on the load screens, massive random pauses like bad frame lag, this is on a mostly vanilla build of KSP other than the Alarm clock and Engineer. I dont use part/scenery mods so ATM isn't necessary. On an i5 Alienware Alpha, performance in 32bit is absolutely fantastic, crashless mostly(way too many things exploded), frame rate stays capped @ 60 while building most of the time, lags just a bit when large things load in though.

If anybody wants to know, the i5 version of the Alienware Alpha plays Kerbal PERFECTLY. Massive rockets dont even phase it, and the only crash I've had came from impacting the Mün at some 2km/s. So to me, the i5, 8gb of 1600mhz ram, and the Nvidia gtx 860m in the Alpha are perfect for this game.

I once built a rocket that had 136 kerbals on it. It was supposed to be an all at once instant colony on the Mün. Except I'd forgotten launch clamps and the damned thing collapsed and detonated on the pad killing my entire colony...

Made a Saturn V out of a combination of mod parts. It flew pretty close to the real thing. Best planned mission I did with it was a direct ascent to free return trajectory that had a Kerbin periapse of 30km. Never once fired the service module engine, i was able to separate and land the LEM in a manner that bought me down where the Comand module was gonna be, EVA and plant a flag, take some screenshots and rendezvous as it came around the Mün.

Ordered a new machine to end my year long KSP dry spell. 21 days till delivery.

Worst performance I've ever seen came off of the worst laptop ive ever had the misfortune of using, 4 parts crashed the VAB/SPH and 3 gave me 2 fps in flight. An i3 equivalent or better CPU with a bargain bin GPU would work fine. The game itself isnt really all that GPU heavy, it does however EAT memory which causes crashes, when you add mods. This has been reduced somewhat by other mods though.

I've spent way too much money on the ability to play just this game, some $3800, building the pc, replacing burned up parts, losing said pc to random circumstances, and now going through it again to get another one. So Yes to the Question.

I always used an Apollo style approach. Even if it ment cloning the main core, which was Mün capable on its own, into multi-core asparagus monsters that scored a 0 for efficiency.

I would say yes. I've always thought the minimum specs required for this game were set a little low. Truthfully I dont really know. I had a really cheap base build I slowly built up as I figured out what worked. I did learn RAM speed helped out the most. As soon as I went from crappy stock 1333mhz ram to the 2400mhz stuff I was crashless. That happened before I added the second GPU. All that did was get me another steady 10fps.

Ground friction really only works if there is enough gravity. The Mün doesn't really have enough. Also, check your speed the next time you go skittering across the ground.

My part limit the Last time I played KSP over a year ago with 0.20-0.21. was somewhere on the verge of 2k parts @20fps. The game has been optimized a bit since then. With the PC I had, I never experienced the crashing and frame rate problems others did, I dont really know why. PC specs as follows: CPU: FX-8350 OC'D@ 4.9GHZ GPU: 2x 3gb HD7950s RAM 32gb Corsair 2400mhz(oc:2600mhz) Mobo: Asus Sabertooth v3(the special one with PCI-e 3.0) (I believe the stupid fast CPU combined with a capped 4gb of the fastest RAM out when i built it was the reason I never had crash problems. I was pushing the data too fast for it to build to crash levels.)

Im looking forward to it. This kinda sounds sort of like what Xcom has. Gonna make losing Kerbals a little harder

Im not playing .25 because I don't actually have a PC. This is an issue thats being rectified. That being said, its looking more and more likely that I'll be playing on .90....