MR4Y

It only has an effect if you're running linux, as there's no x64 version of KSP for windows. A higher end pc allows you to run better graphics and have less delay on physics calculations. In this config: -Core i3 3330. -8GB RAM (1 stick) -ATI Radeon HD 6770 -Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bits. Is able to run KSP with everything on maximum at 1280x1024 fullscreen resolution and also using heavier mods, like B9, still providing 2GB for KSP to use. More RAM will only make a difference for your OS, not KSP, since it can only use a maximum of 2GB (which is a limitation of 32 bit apps, even while running under a 64 bit OS)

No idea what are you talking about. There's no link and, as stated by a number of people, you have multiples fixes for the same problem, blurry/incomplete/unclear instructions (like ModularFuels when it was first released), have to hunt separate files...Which is pretty much time I'd rather spend playing KSP instead.

I'm not interested in the "contest" for a few reasons, one of them being that there's no guarantee that these will be final, as SQUAD's disclaimer is clear that things are about to change and all that. Not even promissed features for future updates are granted to be implemented at all. Also, is there a reason for a marketing company to need people working for them for free? This all seems fishy. You barely have a somewhat functional core game(still in alpha) and it's aleready changing useless assets that are purely asthetic, like logos?

PhysX only uses the GPU if you a have a nVidia graphics card. The physics is calculated by the CPU instead if you don't have a card compatible with it.

Finally a suggestion that actually makes sense. That would also help people who can run the graphics KSP provides, but still get's lower framerates because of the way KSP handles processing. I never fully understood where's the advantage of running entirely into RAM if the game can't even see all of it (64 bit version). Also, it's been speculated that some native 64 bit programs are 15% faster because you're not loosing time converting data (Since all CPUs do 64 bit processing internally and externally and have to convert data for 32 bit apps in a format they can deal with, even when running a native x64 OS).

Yes, that's the "standard protocol response" everyone tell me when I complain about the lack of IVA, which is strange, considering that the Hitchhiker had the same number of complaints in equal number and ended up with an IVA view.

It doesn't. But this is a discussion thread. Would be useless if everyone had the same opinion.

First off, where you got the fallacious assumption that I am a stock purist? Also, every single KSP player have used at least one mod at least once, which makes stock purists hypocrites. And yes, making overly complex vehicles that are unstable to pilot and maneuver and stating that only MJ can pilot them, hence it is an improvement is an excuse to give MJ a function. Take your assumptions somewhere else.

For one, we already have most of what the suggestions propose. Pressing F3 gives you flight details and you have your science logs for planets into the R&D facility. As for achievements, they're not necessary and immersion breaking. You might as wel have someone approach you while you're playing and scream in your ear: "YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME!"

Okay, now let's look at the following: -The Mk2 Cockipit was introduced in 0.15 with a partial IVA added in 0.17. We have yet to see a complete IVA for this. -The Oscar B tank was introduced in 0.18. It still has no fuel bar on the staging column. -The Mk3 Fuselage was introduced in 0.17.1. It has to yet receive a purely structural version or a Rocket tank version. -The Mk3 to Mk2 Adapter was introduced in 0.15.x. Same lack of features from the Mk3 fuselage apply here. -The Radial Engine Body was introduced in 0.15 and it's purely asthetic. Apart from other features missing, like realtime reading for all science parts, etc.

And given that only a handful of people know how to use it, mainly people that make mods (Which is the same thing that used to happen with ModularFuels/RealFuels), this mod serves it's purpose right.

Yes, but this sounds more like and excuse to give MJ a purpose, when you could had launched the first rocket as separate pieces and joined them into orbit.

You can measure it by checking the number of mods and the popularity of big mods like B9, KW, etc. So yeah. It wouldn't be silly to figure that all KSP players use or used at least one mod at a specific point. Seems optmistic? Let's see. -Haystack functionality is now in the core game. -Subassembly Loader/Manager is now in the core game. -Some parts from KSPX are now in the core game. -Tweakables are now in the core game. -Kerbal Crew's Manifest of having different Kerbals is now in the core game. And the list goes on. Next in the list probably will be Kerbal Alarm Clock.

MJ is useful for times when you can't control most of the mission's aspects directly. Thought it's not perfect. I started being wary of it's faults when the maneuver node planner put my satellite in colision route to Duna's surface, instead of orbiting it. Also, no one is willing to make it work with FAR, which makes me steer away from it.

"This game is an alpha, so you shouldn't criticize it."

Never. We only receive new parts, not usability of old ones. Just look which version certain parts where introduced and how long they're sitting either missing functionalities, being purely asthetical or nor working well with other parts.

I would still love to see adapter plane parts that aren't fuel tanks. Is that too hard to do?

The thing is that we had large SAS and ASAS modules before. Now all capsules have torque built-in.

Make a square wing part. I'm yet to figure why no one else has done it yet. Not even Bac9

SpaceEngine is not a game engine. It's just the name of the game. Plus, SE's engine is written by it's own creator, making it not something commercially avaliable.

To be fair, sounds are, by far, the least important thing to be changed in the game. Core gaming aspects need overhaul first as well as functionalities need to be added/tweaked.

You're probably ignoring the mais problem of CryEngine. The problem that ignores all the conversion issues and software/hardware issues. That problem is licensing. If you happen to take a look at CryEngine's forums, you'll see lots of indie developers complaining about Crytek's "smoke and mirrors" licensing policy, unclear license costs, absent tech support, long waiting list and so on. Also, good luck trying to find documentation on how to use CryEngine. Crytek themselves assume you're one of the people that developed the engine with them. Little to no documentation on how to use it is provided, as opposed to Unity and CryEngine's biggest rival, UDK. To cut a long story short, CryEngine is only suitable for huge AAA Title gaming developer teams.

If they don't, then why threads where mods are used are closed? Also.

If KSP made PshyX calculations, you could run it with a nVidia Tegra CPU.