Nerei

I only ran with toolbar when I made those tests so interaction with other mods should not really be an issue. The save was also new so that should also eliminate some problems. I guess Mission controller could interact with toolbar in some way to cause the problem. Another thing is the debug log appears to disable part of the GUI (mission controller buttons does not work and the vehicle cost/total cash reserves disappear) so if the problem is to be found in the GUI that might explain why it works better with that open. It appears to be a linux specific problem as I have tried copying my gamedata folder over to a windows install and after stripping KW and B9 parts (to make it work on a 32bit app) it ran just fine. I'm running the 64 bit linux version so memory is not really an issue. It can use say 10GB memory just fine

I can offer you a player.log which from what I can tell is the linux equivalent of the output_log file. I it just hidden way better than the output_log file http://pastebin.com/ZpSBZ35W I did not notice anything particular in the file but I do not know what to look for either The reason I mention toolbar is that removing it fixes the problem just as well as removing the mission controller folder and there appears to be some mess with the toolbar and mechjeb that causes performance spikes like these. I have messed a bit more around with it and it feels a bit weird. The problem appears to be tied to the number of parts. The z-map satellite does not appear to have any major problems, but the z-map satellite with boosters for a total of 150 parts pretty much makes the game crawl. It is also just the mouse rotation that causes it, keyboard rotation works fairly well. Insanely enough mouse rotation appears to work way better with the debug window open. with it open it can handle close to 650 parts quite well all things considered. Without the debug window open mouse rotation with that craft is roughly at 1/4 fps. If nothing else I might have found a workaround for the problem for now

Got a problem with Mission controller extended on linux 64 bit. When I add it to the game it pretty much turns the game into a slideshow for crafts that otherwise performs fairly well. It does not appear to be a conflict with other mods as I have been able to reproduce it without other mods installed. Removing toolbar seems to make it go away but not knowing how the mod loads I might just be killing it entirely doing that.

I have a problem with toolbar that resembles that of SolarSailor. Basically I also get massive spikes on performance when toolbar is installed. So far I can say that it is at least not just mechjeb that is the problems as removing that made no difference. However removing the 000_toolbar folder from the gamedata folder definitely appears to fix the problem. I do not get any errors in the debug console when installing mechjeb on vehicles. I have so far not been able to definitively locate the cause of the problem as I have a lot of mods to check but given that just removing toolbar and doing nothing else fixes it I would hazard that it is involved somehow. I will see if I can narrow down the problem. I am also running 64 bit linux. I suspect it is somehow related to the linux version as I have not been able to reproduce it on windows when directly copying over the mod folders (had to remove some parts but it did not affect the error appearing on the linux version). edit: so far I can definitely add mission controller extended to the list of mods that does not play nice with toolbar on 64 bit linux. The mod folder itself does not appear to cause problems although determining how much it actually loads is hard. With toolbar it causes vessels in the VAB that normally runs fairly well to turn into a slideshow. lets see if I can find anything else

The idea is interesting but in the currently suggested setup I have a hard time finding any practical usage for it. An electric generator that puts out 4K ec is basically useless as I could just put on any kind of combination of batteries that would weigh 0.2 tonne. Even at half the weight I would probably go for the batteries simply due to them being rechargeable (I might still drag it along for the RP value, but that is not something to balance a part around). To me a better usage would probably be to make it give a very low power output (say 2ec/s or less), but let it be able to run for an extended period of time, like say a week. If you put it really early in the tech-tree it could serve as a power module for say a Mun expedition that will allow more data transmissions etc. That way you also have it before the player gets photovoltaics which given how insanely overpowered they are will basically kill it no matter what. For in atmosphere usage where photovoltaics might not work (like say during a launch) a say Z-1K (1000 ec) battery is still a way better option. Not really going to consider it for sandbox as you have to say RTG's from the start. The LFO generator is a bit harder. It will never be practical for mods like KSP interstellar. That mod basically deals in the 10.000 to 100.000.000.000 ec/s range. NFPP is closer, but it would still pretty much be orders of magnitude too weak to work there. If you design it for those mods you have to fight against nuclear reactors. That fight cannot be won. 15ec/s really scream for usage on an ion powered spacecraft. Problem with that is you will probably kill it with weight if you drag along say a LF-T100 or LF-T200 to fuel it (IMO anything much above 1 tonne is too much for ion propulsion which a LF-T200 breaks alone). Except for ion engines (and potentially large scale data transmissions, but batteries will probably serve you better there) 15ec/s also feels like overkill, you can run a lot of reaction wheels, or regular wheels on 15ec/s. Stacking up on photovoltaics or RTG's for ion engines (they are tech level 8 and ion engines are 7 so they are close enough to consider them being unlocked fairly close to each other) to me feels like the stronger choice. Really except for part count a generator and a LF-T200 would probably always lose to RTG's in effectiveness, especially considering the RTG's infinite duration. Not that I would power it with RTG's. Photovoltaics like the OX, SP or gigantor combined with a bit of planning seems like a much better option to either of those. Again I could see it as a specialized power unit to power say rovers or landers on the dark side of a planet. Probably as a supplement to photovoltaic panels (I have had landers, rovers and shuttles where such a part would have fitted in just fine). It would probably have to be small and able to run on a small fuel source like an Oscar-B for some time then. Again it would have to come early to get some usage before RTG's are invented. Having it as an early data transmission power source is an option but then you probably fight the solid fuel generator and once photovoltaics roll around you are probably better off with just sticking on 12K ec batteries and a few photovoltaic panels. It will probably not weigh more and it will probably give you all the endurance you need (and probably more than a limited fuel power source). Sorry if I ramble a lot but I like the idea and I would use it if it can find a niche to fit into but with the current design this game has for photovoltaics and RTG's I cannot see it fitting in as a large scale power source.

Considering the number of bugs in the physics engine I would say no thanks. I cannot keep track of the number of times a craft spontaneously disintegrated after docking, firing a decoupler or just decided to disassemble itself. My last case was a Kerbin return vehicle that disintegrated after docking with the ascent stage of a lander module. In that case I darn well want a function to take me back before a flaw in the game decided my ship should not exist even if I do not plan to use quicksave to solve the problem when my lander crashes due to poor piloting. If they can fix those kinds of bugs then fair enough I can see a point with a dedicated ironman feature but until then I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole. Have to ask a question though: If Ironman is to avoid people being tempted, what is preventing them from copy-pasting persistance files as an alternative? I personally use it as a backup in case I destroy my save (yes it has happened before) but nothing prevents you from effectively using it as a full scale save function. Also deliberately crashing the game right after something bad happens might just allow you to retry and prevent it from happening. Creating a mode that does not allow any kind of "exploits" is a big project and probably not worth the resources. For the record it has been some time since I last played the new Xcom so they might have fixed it but at release there was a ton of different ways to exploit or work around their "anti-cheat" system if you felt like it and that was by a company that can throw considerably more resources at it than Squad can be expected to. Making a checkbox as have been suggested to simply enable/disable quicksave should be fairly simple and a good enough substitute for a true secure ironaman mode.