protoz

I see, this definitely needs a few variations of buttons such as "purchase everything in selected tech parts: cheapest to highest". Clicking 20-30 times for each tech and scrolling down is not fun

A lot of parts are locked stating requires entry purchase in R&D, i don't see a "entry" tech and i have everything unlocked.

Pretty much, check back in the year 2020 V 1.0 should be close to being released w. beta phase beginning.

Not having resources is like not having minerals in StarCraft, its still a game, but no ones going to play it. There's only so much "exploration" of barren empty planets you can do until you realize they are just useless rocks of different color. This game has no purpose because core mechanics aren't in yet, but it doesn't help when one of the core mechanics was planned for .19 was pushed back to 2013 Q3 or Q4 or 2014? Core mechanics like refueling, orbital construction, colonization, or adding purpose to go to other planets is what should be worked on, not re-texturing VAB, redesigning SAS, astronaut recruitment center, crew management GUI, flags, seats, etc. They are all good additions to the game but get your priorities straightened out and create core of the game.

Define lag, because to some lag is anything less then 120 fps 60 fps.. Some play the game w. 10 fps & think thats smooth enough for them, some turn on Max Physics Delta-Time per Frame all the way up and play the game at 1/20th speed and consider that not lag.

Get a quantum computer, only 10 million USD. Maybe one of those can run KSP 300 parts with 40 fps, but thats wishful thinking.

Your delusional... You don't understand the context of what you quote & assume what the discussion is about using your imagination. Then you can't comprehend how KSP caps your design with performance halt while MineCraft doesn't. Which wasn't even my main point as i was referring to KSP not utilizing 2013 PC hardware.

When you quoted me on on: Maybe you should of read the context of what i was referring to because i didn't change anything, you just failed to understand what the discussion was about. And the term "design limits" was something i quoted from jwenting, not my choice of words but his context refers to design limits due to performance. This goes deep, might have to read the quote of a quoter of a quoter, but you know you might have to do that to understand the reality of the situation.

Where do i begin? i guess with the basics again. We're talking about design limits due to performance aka make anything more then 200 parts in KSP, your gonna have a bad time. But your bringing up the fact that you can't build vertical after a certain point or the game doesn't have round blocks... thats facepalm/cringeworthy response you made there, PS. there are mods that increase vertical height to infinity. I can build anything and everything in MC and not have my game come to a halt. You know you can't dig in KSP or go underground? thats the kind of points your bringing up and they have nothing to do w. design limits due to performance.

What are they? Because if there are limits in MineCraft i've yet to reach them or hear about them for 4 years of playing the game. Which brings me to my original point. KSP limits are reached when part counter starts hitting 200 or more parts. While Minecraft limits exist, but are unknown, at least to me, they are probably in the 200,000 give or take part count equivalent of KSP limits. So maybe KSP should expand its limits when PC hardware is improved, because its current limits are outdated and hard locked to the year 2000 PC hardware.

You should consider context of words within sentence and or paragraph. For one i was not comparing BF3 to KSP i was comparing that my hardware upgrade will give me a boost to 99% of software, excluding KSP, this is context which you failed to recognize. Build me a circuit board in KSP oh wait... I'm good at this too!!! I would stick to these kind of arguments if i was 10 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft Point delivered. Its one of those games where you can make 32bit computers. My current rig from 2008 is E8400(core2duo) 3ghz gtx 560ti 8gb ddr2 1066 610w psu I'll I'll be upgrading on Monday to i5-3570k OC it to 4.5ghz 2x SLI 560ti 8gbddr3 1866 750w ps. How much will this get me in BF3 for example? I'll go from 40 FPS on Low settings to 60 fps on Ultra. My benchmark scores will increase anywhere between 400-600%. How much of a performance boost will this get me in KSP? Probably 0%.

China tried to pass Top Gun footage as Air Force footage. I think KSP is a dead giveaway.

A game focused on design w. design limits, you could say maybe it wasn't designed too well?

I reached Mun, nothing there, made a conclusion theres nothing there on other planets, just different color barren rocks. The direction i went afterwards was play other games until this gets developed & gameplay is added.

Using hyperedit & mechjeb to land stock crafts on planets.

The base of the game doesn't exist yet. Once they add a way to refuel ships and a purposeful meaning for you to go to different planets then you may have something, as of now they are just barren rocks of different color. If your new i highly recommend looking into Kethane mod.

It looks like i was playing on broken turbofan intakes that were giving 10-20x more intake air then they should of, doesn't look like my designs are gonna work anymore.

How come i can never get the engine's max power besides the Sabre? All the turbojets & fan engines give 50% less then whats listed in the description, D-30F7 capped out at 120 for me before it started declining but its listed as 225. Also CF34 & TFE731's intakes are 10x greater they let me climb additional 10-15,000 meters even if i just use them solely for their intakes.

Im not sure which ones your referring to? Nuclear or CF34? Either way what im going for is efficiency, i want to get to orbit w. enough fuel to go to Duna. I did 4x Sabre M for their thrust vectoring but the CF34 have better thrust to weight & ISP then Sabre M, and I don't plan on using Sabre Ms in vacuum, anything lower then 800 isp is just awful imo. I guess i could use 100% Sabre M & nuclear combo, which will reduce part count but increase ISP consumption drastically which shouldn't matter it'll go from having the possibility of 3 hour sustained flight to 1 and a half. Either way im designing this flying fortress for kerbin/duna not to get to orbit over and over, but it will have that ability w. 40 some nuclear engines. I make my SSTOs w. fuel to go to other planets like this one for example, a lighter rover'ier model, it can go to orbit & make it to the Mun but no fuel for landing, & it has lots of flaws This time around i'm trying an improvement but no rover wheels cause 350 tons.

Viperwolf, A 400-600 part craft mixed w. fraps/stream thats like watching paint dry, 1 irl second takes 40 seconds in KSP. Unity engine, is Stone Age technology. I can post the craft instead if you like. Its stable in the atmosphere but trying to center stage 2 engines w. limitations imposed by the game is a lot of work.

I'm not late too submit my WIP entry of 350 ton SSTO to anywhere am i? 40 nuclear engines w. 15 mins of fuel.

First thing i would do is attach 1 ion engine to each planet forcing them to thrust at each other, then i wait.

Ya im trying to take that thing to Duna, i orbited kerbin w. half a fuel tank left, the things 180~ tons. Need to see what its gonna weight once its filled w. 32,000 kethane.

TFE731 turbofan engine's intake is 6x greater than sabre m's intake, working as intended? I achieved 1,600 velocity at 41,000m altitude on the vonnegutt just by simply adding twin TFE731s on air intakes while hauling 18 tons in cargo.