Amram

yep, your correct, I had a good link to the right answer, just flubbed my text for the link, fixed. 149 = A( √(!4), 4 ) + 4!! * √(!4)

done. 4^4^4^4 > 4^1024 FAR larger still:4!^4!^4!^4! > 4^4^4^4 The second one is basically 24^24^24^24, which is needless to say, HUGE. Yet i can go considerably large still. ((((4!)!)!)!)! = 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^1.400868540431458)))), which is WAY larger than even 4!^4!^4!^4! So ((((4!)!)!)!)!^((((4!)!)!)!)!^((((4!)!)!)!)!^((((4!)!)!)!)! Top that. Yet its easy. Throw the entire thing in another set of parenthesis, and apply the factorial function, done. (((((4!)!)!)!)!^((((4!)!)!)!)!^((((4!)!)!)!)!^((((4!)!)!)!)!)! is bigger, MUCH bigger. The largest value one can reach is about as close to infinity as to be essentially impossible to conceive of. There's no limit on how many functions you can wrap those four fours in, which is why the challenge is not to reach the largest possible value in which case you could ALWAYS take the previous answer, wrap it in another set of parenthesis and then append a !, and its bigger, MUCH bigger. Given that, an infinite number of factorial operations , each operating on the answer to the previous operation as happens when each is in its own set of parenthesis, would essentially get you an infinitely large number, and that's that. Of course you read the rules to the game before joining in said game, so you definitely saw Rule 6 right? Your number must be the next integer in sequence. So you'll be free to use that one sometime next millennium i think. I would have thought 16 pages of sequential numbering would have made that rule redundant by now. 147 = A( √(!4), 4 ) +4! - √4

ok, i'll bite, since you singled out 2(pi)i specifically, why is that more correct than 2(pi) or Tau.

that may be true, but you at least do always know whats down those lines. You know that after this energy weapon, is another energy weapon, and its better than this one. SotS's tech tree is blind only in the sense that you don't know what is missing, not what is present. Even as a new player, I never sat back, looked at the set of entry level stuff and asked my self, now what do I buy to rule the galaxy later? i always knew what I wanted to achieve down the line, and the tech tree made it quite clear where i'd find it, if it were really there this time through. it also made me want what was behind it, because I knew exactly what sort of thing i would find behind it. Sure we know there are more engines behind the engines, but are they better, or just different? What random requirement is needed for unlocking this other new tech we can reach but can't seem to click on now? A mistep in KSP's tech progression is enormously more expensive in terms of player investment than any game i've ever played, so when you make a less than ideal choice, its not a case of meh, whatever, its a case of dammit, now I have a broken keyboard to replace. The less skilled you are as a player, the more this mistep hurts, because its that much harder for you to get tech. it took you a lot of time, to achieve an uncertain amount of performance from your operation of your craft to perform your plan, to get an unknown amount of science. Once finished, you spend the points. As a new player, you'd have to ask yourself, will I ever get more science than that? For all you know thats the best you'll ever see, you may have gotten lucky. or the beginner's science luck/distribution may have been expended, you just don't know. Seriously, who here expects a relatively new player to have 1000 points on mission two? How about 300 points? Orbit? Successful launch even? We need to stop judging everything by how it affects us, we who can dock and built multi lander craft that can return from Eve, there are players who fail to achieve orbit on a daily basis. KSP doesn't even let you plan for the future of your agency, its not apparent where anything is by what you have or where you got it. Where do you find the landing gear? Its behind science, duh, where else would you put it? First you research basic rocketry. Er what? research parts for upgoer 2 so I can land my planes tomorrow? mkay... Then you research parachutes. Dammit, Jim! Im an aircraft engineer, not a seamstress, I need WHEELS, not fabric! Then you research science tech, and you get a rover wheel. Your first hint or wheels to come, but its a rover wheel, not aircraft gear, and its under science, rovers are for science, path still not clear. Why aren't we working on those aircraft techs for aircraft parts? Then you get your landing gear. How is that clear from the beginning? What other related tech did we get while doing this? Was anything related to anything else we got? Is anything a natural progression from what you had to what you got? Most games I have ever played so far, have had one thing in common. If you want aircraft related parts, you research aircraft related techs. If you want better energy weapons, keep working on the energy weapon techs. if you want improved range, you work on engine efficiency or fuel capacity. Need more staff, improve logistics. Etc, you know what you want, its clear what you need, go get it. On your first game in, good luck with that. Might as well spin a wheel and buy what it picks, because you're planning will be that poor despite attempts otherwise.

I don't think you really understand what it is that KSP does that is demanding, and what it is your system must be capable of to have good performance. A 64 bit release, should they ever get one stable, would do nothing to solve your FPS issues. It will alleviate the 3.2gb memory limits and thats it. You problem sounds like integrated or otherwise very outdated graphics. Is it a laptop per chance? Even so, you will not see a 300% increase regardless of the optimising they do, which means you aren't going to get above the 30's for FPS while looking around. Not without an upgrade. For that matter, i doubt they'll achieve a 200% performance bump overall through optimising, so I doubt you'd ever see 20's. If you've turned everything off and performance is still so poor, that's a very clear sign that what you have is not the right tool for the job. And it doesn't matter what the game is, its always true. Once you have to turn everything off and it still runs poor, the message is clear. What you have doesn't match up to what they saw as the minimum viable hardware. Maybe it was good when you bought it, maybe it was low end, i don't know and it doesn't matter. Its obviously very low end now or you'd see considerably more than 10fps. Sounds to me like its well past time for an upgrade.

144 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4!! + 4!! + 4!!

Playing: three days: KSP CreeperWorld 3 Galciv 2 TotA Global Conflict Blue Playing: last two weeks: Total Annihilation(yep, still currently installed, still functional, still amazing) Supreme Commander Forged Alliance Hearts of Iron 3 Total War: Rome II Rome: Total War Medieval II: Total War which one gets fired up is pretty much mood dependent if not those then it might be: Startopia Light of Altair Freeciv GranTusimo 3, 4, or 5, i've got lengthy saves in each. Sword of the Stars: Argo Naval Yard Xcom Enemy Unknown StarDrive StarSector KingsBounty: Platinum DCS A-10C Arma2 Starships Unlimited 3.5 X3: Reunion Each has been played in the last 2 months at least once. I can't wait for: GalCiv 3 Planetary Annihilation Hearts of Iron 4(not announced, eta unknown, Paradox, if you ever read this, I will hunt you down and skin you with a carrot peeler if this never happens) What can i say, I like my games, and the ones I really like, i play to death, and then some more.

you got the amazing and weird, throw in a healthy dose of absurd, and a large helping of why?....because i CAN, and you'll have it pretty much explained. Whatever you think of as well beyond the normal limit is below the operating standards of a Whackjob creation, it just is. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36572-I-am-full-of-grief-and-coffee?p=842855&viewfull=1#post842855 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36572-I-am-full-of-grief-and-coffee?p=862734&viewfull=1#post862734 and one of the earliest descriptions of what Whackjob does: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36572-I-am-full-of-grief-and-coffee?p=464743&viewfull=1#post464743 soon followed by his own admission http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36572-I-am-full-of-grief-and-coffee?p=466887&viewfull=1#post466887 Not sure what else to say other than, since you'll see it eventually, Whackjob, what's after the thrillsphere? Thrillsphere on the mun?

142 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4!! + 4!! + Γ(4)

its easy for me: I have hundreds of tracks like it, and thats pretty much the sort of stuff I play KSP to, the stock music is muted. Another good one is

KSP just adds up total drag. So it takes every part you have, and adds the drag together, and there's your current craft drag. There's a bit more to it, but for the sake of understanding why nosecones seem to not really help, thats about all that really matters. it doesn't care that your tanks or boosters are behind the cone, it doesn't hide them, so their full drag is still counted as if the nosecone were not there, as to KSP's drag model, it isn't. So the nosecone does three things, two of them negative. It adds yet more drag to your craft. Less than other parts, but its still more than you had. Considering its not helping you reduce drag anywhere, this means your total drag just got larger, not smaller. It adds mass. Everything has mass, nosecones are no exception, so now you must lift the nosecones mass too, which reduces your thrust to weight ratio by a little bit. They have less drag than other parts, so all things equal, the other parts will be slowed more than the nosecone, so the nosecone will have a slight tendency to assist you in holding a prograde alignment. However its small to the point of almost insignificant. Fins at the base of your rocket are a better investment for stability. So if your playing stock aerodynamics, your choice is whether or not you care about appearance. They hurt your performance(as you saw), so style is about all they can do for you.

If it is the engine shutdown that's getting you, they don't get equal air, the first one gets everything it needs, then the next, so one will always starve first. Which ever is placed first gets its air first, whichever was placed last starves first. if you place them with symmetry, then the one you placed is the first and the one symmetry added is next and will starve first. There isn't much you can do to avoid that that i know of, short of not having your engines away from the center of mass to reduce their kick when one flames out, or to shut them down a tad early to avoid the issue entirely. Alternatively, a little redesign might make the off center thrust a useful thing. For example, if you stack them one on top of the other, then you get a pitch instead of a yaw when one flames out, and i've found the pitching is often easier to recover from when it occurs. If its a spaceplane, placing the upper engine second will make it flame out first, so you get a sudden upward pitching motion when the upper engine flames out, which is a good time to trigger your rocket engine too since you'll get that helpful upward kick to get you pointed right.

now the only thing I do wish for, and hope you find the time to do someday, is to know the current true thrust of my craft pre-launch. To date i've just built my propulsion system and attached it to a pod, engine aimed upwards, planted it on the pad, and throttled up to see what I get before deciding if that's the way i'll go or not, as the engines all seem to report their maximum, and not what i'll achieve. To be fair I could do some math, but the simple test is a bit quicker, and an in game readout far quicker still.

chaos, thats what has ensued, lots of it.

time for a break. Besides, 30 numbers in as many minutes is a good run. i'll just put this back..... 140 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4!! + Γ(4) + Γ(4) and here I thought I was losing it, I saw 139, so i posted, and then, oh look, I replied to myself, wtf. So I pull my 140, only to find I did see it, and Chris has now gone on without me, lol. Yep, time to take a break.

agreed 138 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4!! + Γ(4) + 4

136 = Γ(Γ(4)) + Γ(4) + Γ(4) + 4

134 = Γ(Γ(4)) + Γ(4) + 4 + 4

132 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4 + 4 + 4

130 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4 + √4 + 4

128 = Γ(Γ(4)) + 4 + √4 + √4

126 = Γ(Γ(4))-!4 + !4 + Γ(4)

124 = Γ(Γ(4))-!4 + !4 + 4

122 = Γ(Γ(4))-!4 +!4 + √4

120 = Γ(Γ(4))-!4 +Γ(4) + √(!4) I have a few worked out already....though some of the more sequential ones are pretty easy to do on the spot.