xtoro

This will all end in regrets I'm sure of it. With the little amount of RAM consoles have, it will be interesting to see how they'll handle memory management. Load on demand parts and textures? And as someone else mentioned, they will be limited on part count unless U5 does some multithreading magic because I don't know how they expect low spec CPUs to handle things that high spec PCs do ok with. Perhaps the porting company really has no idea what they're getting into?

So many ways! I really need to start a naming convention instead of naming them after fruits!

Yeah but then everyone has to agree on what they want to do, furthering frustrations

Agreed OPM is awesome. Planets with saturn-like rings? Awesome! Still have yet to fly out that far though

I just mean playing with others who aren't in sync with you just leads to frustration. I tried dmp a few times. But say I head out to Jool and everyone is busy doing other stuff, then I fly something back. Now I'm years ahead of everyone else and they might not sync up with me for a long time, unless they just want to.

Wrong game to be multiplayer. This would really only work well and be easy to play if there was no time warp. But you need it. Perhaps if it was all on the surface of Kerbin only, or if there was only Kerbin and the Mun to play on.

Try installing the Outer Planets mod. It adds lots of new planets and moons that are waaaay out there.

Use procedural tanks and structures. This might reduce your part count below 100k

Just set one up that's pretty easy to setup and seems to always be connected so far. I have 2 sats in geo orbits opposite from each other, one sat landed on the Mun facing Kerbin (Mun is tidally locked so it always faces Kerbin) and one huge sat in very high polar orbit with all the long range antennas for reaching other planets. With this combination, my deep space polar sat always gets a connection to mission control one way or another. My ground-based Mun relay gets used often and comes in handy. What are your setups like? Just curious about odd and unconventional setups that turn out to work well.

My laptop is one with the dual cards, Intel+AMD 7690X. When on battery I run the Intel card and drop the AA from 8x to 2x and it's very playable. My PC has 2 crossfired AMD 5830's until I can figure out how to fit my 2 5890's in the case because they're too long, but I'm happy with what I have now. I've always used ATI/AMD and only once had a laptop with NVIDIA which I wasn't impressed with.

Yep, most annoying stock part. Have to SHIFT+Q/E whatever is underneath to line up ladders or make one at an angle. Command pod, lander pod, no difference. People use the command seats on Landers too. Everything is a lander in KSP! I do hope they change it.

lol no. But I know lots of people who do

Walking on water is just as easy as getting a working plane, you just need patience. (wait till winter and walk on the ice)

But using the fuselage for lift also defeats the purpose of wings. The logic behind it is while the wings generate lift, they're thin and generate less drag when compared to a large fuselage which would add very little lift, making the loss in drag not worth it. Fly a MK3 plane and press F12 to see aero effects and look at the red drag line caused by the fuselage. Now tilt the wings and look again, the red line is shorter, meaning less drag, less wasted dV and more lift from the increase in speed.

Everything was pretty well covered except for your DCoM(Dry Center of Mass) which is where your CoM is when your tanks are empty. There's a couple of mods such as RCS Build Aid which will show you where this is. It's best to design your plane so that your CoM and DCoM are as close together as possible so that your CoL doesn't drift too far from your CoM as your fuel drains. Easiest way is to use the large wings with fuel in them, or place your main wings alongside your fuel tanks. For cargo planes, I place fuel tanks on the sides of the payload and CoM, with wings attached to the tanks. Also, use the rotation widget to tilt your wings upwards just a smidge 5*-ish. This reduces the drag that the body of the plane is creating when you climb because the body of the plane is at less of an angle so less of it is "hitting the wind". Doing this also brings your CoL forward so you don't need nose wings/canards and you can keep your main wings further back.

Nobody games on Windows NT, which is what we're talking about, on a game forum. To be technical on client machines, XP used the NT kernel. And DOS drivers were still used quite a bit for network and sound cards up to 2000 when they changed the HAL.

Forgive me for not reading all 184 pages but a search didn't come up with my question. Is it possible to add support for individual parts? So you can go into a parts pack and see a list of them and delete parts from within CKAN? Or, lets say you want to install only the electric prop from firespitter but nothing else? I know you can do it manually but having a GUI to do it would be nice. I put a suggestion a year ago in the stock suggestions forum but it got no love.

Electric prop would be nice for sure. That's the only thing I use out of the firespitter pack... On topic though, I really like the looks of the panther and I hope the performance lets me use it

X2 on the missing option.

Sweet. On a side note, if you can write code for the Z80, you can write flash cart programs for the old Nintendo gameboys or their emulators. Made a few myself for fun /offtopic

Pay attention to how many TSR's your compuer is running and pay attention to known bugs and quirks of KSP .. Since upgrading to Windows 10 I've been essentially lag free and have yet to crash the program Eg .. reverting back to the spaceplane hanger while on the runway will crash the game so if you need to revert back for some reason you need to get whatever is on the runway to move about 1 rockomax large fuel tank length down the runway and it won't crash when you revert TSR's have been a non-issue since Windows XP... Those were DOS problems using old config.sys and autoexec.bat files which are long gone(I'm an old-school/new-school cp/cpa/administrator). And I've been running Windows 10 for well over a month, and I know hardware which is why I know how much the new version is crippling. Lets put it this way, I made assembler programs for the z80. If you don't know what assembler or the z80 is, then i won't bother explaining how I've been in the software/hardware game far too long lol

Erm, not a good theory IMO. Any porting being done by a separate company still requires a fair amount of support from the original devs, and a LOT of time to get immersed into the game and its working parts to begin with. This is all time being taken away from the Squad devs is it not? I know that when I handover a server farm to someone, or have someone come to setup a purpose-built server into my farm, it takes a lot of my time. FAR too much of my time, and I hate doing it. Even after installation/handover, there are weeks and months of communications afterwards regarding all the small details of the network.

Actually that's incorrect. While the PS4 has a slightly better GPU, the XBone has a faster CPU, which is really what matters for KSP since it's not that graphics heavy.

Really? And this is with KSP 1.X? Sorry I have a hard time believing it because intels run KSP better than amd. I had no issues pre-1.x doing the same, but post-1.x had a huge performance hit and is noticeably laggy at 300 parts but still playable. My build: CPU: i7 4790K overclocked at 4.5Ghz RAM: 16GB HyperX Fury ocverclocked @ 2400 Motherboard: MSI Z97-GD65 Gaming board GPU: 2x Radeon HD 5830's crossfired and overclocked PSU: Thermaltake 750W HDD #1: 1TB Western Digital Black HDD #2: Three Spinpoint S4's in RAID 0 config Case: Coolermaster CM690II lined with sound-deadening Spire Soundpad matting on both side panels Case Cooling: 5 fans for case controlled by Scythe fan controller CPU Cooling: CPU is watercooled with Corsair H80i watercooler. Case: Inside:

Have 16 gigs, but never used more than half on 64bit. Currently using 72 mods. I've never come close to 100% doing anything. Even my servers ay work that run huge databases are nowhere near needing more ram... In fact, I can't think of anything that needs more, especially with newer OSes needing less and less. - - - Updated - - - Actually, after thinking about it, I did build 2 machines at work years ago that had 32 gigs. One was a server for simulation software that had 12 client PC's connected to it and did lots of computing, logging and analyzing of huge amounts of data. The other PC was for digital map editing and creating overlays that loaded huge uncompressed bitmaps. Those both came very close to maxing out their 16GB so I put in 32.