Amram
Members-
Posts
135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Amram
-
Lag is subjective, but you have a system very similar to some of those in the post i previously linked to. Did you follow the link? Have you done the test as well so you have numbers to compare with? if so, have you achieved the same or worse performance as those with similar systems to you? if you've come up worse, then you definitely have an issue to sort out, if you come out the same, its likely your getting what you should and it really is just a limitation of KSP/Unity. Took me 10 minutes to find im comparable to those that have the same CPU as me, so I know my performance level is common for my chip. Is there really any better way to answer your question of 'At what part count do your games start lagging?' than with a stock 600 part benchmark test that provides raw data that you can compare directly and see for yourself how things stack up? its enough to ensure that pretty much everyone will lag to some extent, but the data the test yields when done correctly will let you compare to any other system with accuracy. As you fly it, the lag lessens with the dropping part count. How far into the flight you cross various FPS points is very telling in your system performance, and whether your getting all that you should be or not. An added bonus, you can even see charts for how much people lag for various part counts as the part counts per stage are known, and the flights are quite predictable in that respect given that everyone flies the same craft. 10 minutes and you know if troubleshooting to remove an issue that might not even exist is even warranted. Then you'll know if you should be disappointed or not. I don't know, I think i've answered you. With that, im out.
-
That's easily done it just isn't necessary to have 3-5 back to back posts in under 5 minutes.
-
[0.90] Procedural Dynamics - Procedural Wing 0.9.3 Dec 24
Amram replied to DYJ's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
alright, least its known then. -
[0.90] Procedural Dynamics - Procedural Wing 0.9.3 Dec 24
Amram replied to DYJ's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Is there some way to stop the root from getting thicker as you make it longer? its hard to do chines and make them look good when they end up thicker than the aircraft's fuselage. -
erm, you are aware that your posts do have an edit button right? so you don't have to double post, you can just add more to the first one, it even helps with the 10 character limit.
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
Amram replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
like any other version number. <complete release version>.<major sub version>.<minor subversion> its not decimal notation, in which 0.9, in steps of 0.1 is followed by 1.0. its simply counting. We're on Complete release 0, Major Subversion 10, Minor Subversion 0. its perfectly valid to have 3.141.59 if one wants to. Indicating the third full release, 141 major revisions later, with 59 minor tweaks and edits that didn't warrant a new subversion number.- 14,073 replies
-
- aerodynamics
- ferram aerospace research
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
What about "retina resolution" support?
Amram replied to TYRT's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
It is exactly double the resolution the laptop would normally have (-> 2880 x 1800) without content on the display getting smaller (resulting in UI elements getting scaled up to double resolution)http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-does-the-retina-display-work/A bit of both. Retina is a buzzword the likes of HighDPI, essentially the two are the same thing, with different entry requirements for the term to be rightly used. Its not merely 'double' what a 'normal' display would have, its an angular metric. It varies greatly with intended viewing distance. For a 15" viewing distance, its 77 pixels per degree to qualify as retina. http://isthisretina.com/ Put anything far enough away, and it fits the retina requirement. My ancient 42in 720p tv can match that pixel density if I stand far enough back. Retina is merely 'exceeds [x] pixels per inch at [y] viewing distance', nothing special. That said, what I don't get is why this is an issue. The game should be seeing 2880x1800 as a valid resolution, because thats the native resolution of the display, and it apparently isn't. Why it doesn't is what I wonder. Potential flaw in how MacOS is reporting its display resolution to games? That games must 'support' retina may actually suggest that, in that the OS reports one resolution, while possessing another, and games must be coded to recognise this fact. -
To an extent its definitely a limitation of KSP, or, more accurately, Unity, the engine upon which KSP is built. if it could leverage all the cores in a multicore CPU, that would lend itself to massive increases in part count for a similar workload per core. We can dream, but its not really something anyone other than Unity can fix so far as i know. That said, the 4770k is one hell of a chip, so if your coming up at only 370ish parts before lag is noticeable, your suffering somewhere else is my bet. So we'll need more info to figure out whey your suffering so quickly under part count. As to improving performance, KSp responds very well to overclocking, its almost 1 to 1 when CPU bound. If you score a 20% OC, you can expect to earn almost exactly 20% more framerate for the same partcount, if the CPU was what held you back. You mention already planning to do so, I say go for it, at the very least you'll get more out of KSP for your trouble. Regarding OCing a modern CPU with boost functions, if you find your OC is limited by thermal output, so your seeing high temps and stop pushing harder, you can usually slam one core even harder than the 4 and still see the same or less temps. Idea being thast if it doesn't need the other cores, it powers them down to saver power and not produce heat, and that extra headroom can be spent pushing that one core even faster. For KSP, this is a very useful feature indeed, and very worth it to abuse the feature. Btw, this link may interest you, and its relevant. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/42877-CPU-Performance-Database Currently, the FX-8350 is not represented in Dmagic's CPU Performance Database thread, as no one with one has performed the test and presented data for it, perhaps you'd like to show off and get your data included? It would benefit all to see what the 8350 can do in KSP. Its hard to judge the merits of a chip, when there is no common ground upon which to compare, that test provides a controlled case and yields that common ground. I would like to see how it does but don't have an 8350 with which to run the test. So, how about it? Follow the link and give it a go?
-
Your worried our terraforming might hurt other life forms? Ha ha ha , oh, wait, your serious, ok, um, what other life forms? Our survey said the planet was bland, and uninhabited, and, wait, you want to buy them, well, why didn't you say so, we found 47 varieties, choose your flavour, im sure we can come to an agreement...... Money and politics, especially so far from the prying eyes of the general populace will all but ensure that whatever we find will be thoroughly exploited if possible, ignored if not, and ruthlessly obliterated if its so much as a nuisance. Even moreso if its a corporate entity that arrives first and not say, a government that ~might~choose to save some of them. Not that i think its likely, just moreso than if a corporation was in that position.
-
time warp isn't cheating
Amram replied to Buback's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
TL;DR? skip to end, ignore post, whatever. (I miss spoilers sometimes, ah well) I don't get it. If you have to wait for tech, people will grind it anyways, because they will just leave the game on. Have to go to work?, no biggie, leave KSP farming tech, you'll come back to 8 or 9 hours worth. Have to go to sleep, leave KSP farming tech, you'll wake up to 7-9 hours worth. the player still has his tech, in all of 5 minutes of actual time played. Sure the game has been on, but that doesn't count anymore than timewarp counts as play time. How does that solve anything? Making tech take real time solves nothing except to generate bug reports from new players who time warp, and then see that nothing happened to their science rate, surely that must be a bug, better go report it. As a mechanic it makes absolutely zero sense of any sort, and fails to solve the problem it was suggested for. I personally think the answer is in the economics of running your agency. Experiments need materials to experiment on, samples, instrument readings, something.some experiments can be completed with small sample sizes.some may require significant sample sizes, meaning you don't learn all the science in one 'test' unless that one test involves all the data in one shot. Think science from Biomes. There's a lot of Biomes.some experiments might damage/destroy samples requiring multiple identical samples to yield all available science. Heat testing might char the sample, better get a new sample to test for something else later on.Science takes time, GAME time, the only time in the kerbal universe that exists. How many types of time do we have? 7?, 42? 11? 1? Why do they need two types? How does that make sense?Science costs money. Not directly, but your researchers need paychecks, their gear needs to be bought(science parts), your facilities need to be maintained, occasionally serviced. 2 years of warp is going to mean a bill for 2 years of expenses. Running an agency costs money. You would like to keep your agency running....wouldn't you?The previously mentioned paychecks for scientists.Jeb might be willing to fly for free, but Kerbals should cost you. Maintaining a pool of 40 kerbals when you only need 6 should be unwise, and expensiveKeeping your Science lab, or SPH, or Tracking station operating isn't free, it too accrues costsaccelerating time merely means these expenses pile up faster. Sure you got your science more quickly, but did you go bankrupt in the process? [*]Income isn't assured, nor is it 'produced' like running a factory. You might have a federal budget at the beginning, maybe indefinitely. You'll need to justify it though, the bean counters don't like it when there's nothing to show for money spent.Companies may decide to enlist your services. the Campaign may include missions to do things like put a specified payload in orbit around the Mun for example. Complete that and they pay you for the task. Spend too much doing so and you lost money, spend less and you profit.Companies may seek to use your R&D facilities to do things they can't. Again, this leads to income for you, but the facilities need to be there in the first place, and maintained. Maybe your agency is approached by a company that wants a sample from Eve for their own purposes. Go get it for your payout, yes that means a return trip....from Eve, with a sample...[*]you get the idea? Timewarping to get 'free' tech can be solved, easily, without requiring multidimensional spacetime that can flow at three or four rates simultaneously, or some such. Make it cost, make the player go earn the income, now tech costs in gameplay, because gameplay is needed to earn the money to pay for the tech. We have an initial implementation of 1, we don't have 2 or 3, and here we are complaining that science over time would be broken* because 4 isn't functional, because it first requires 2 and 3. How does the complaint that started all this(look at all that free tech if you timewarp!) even make sense considering? Stop with the little piece of the puzzle and view the bigger picture, what timewarp will cost you when you have a budget. A shorter version for the more A.D.D. among us. You want to do launch rockets? That'll cost you, parts aren't free, neither are your pilots. You want to do science with those rockets? The rocket will cost you more, lab equipment and sensors are not cheap. You want to have Science points to unlock stuff with? Do experiments with those science parts. That means going and getting samples, data, and such stuff. You want to develop Science points from your experiments? That'll cost you, gotta pay R&D for their time, and maintain the facilities they use. You want to timewarp? Whatever, you still have to pay your bills, faster time just means the bills pile up faster is all. Want to pay for all this? Produce results of some kind to justify the payouts you receive. No result, no payout except for maybe a limited federal budget. No new payouts/income, but lots of time accelerated science? Career mode failure. Your broke, can't afford to buy an engine, let alone a rocket. Have a nice day. Want to prevent that? GO DO STUFF. That means a busy player, who is playing the game. Got 20 missions in progress simultaneously? er...wow, i have yet to juggle more than a couple(no need to....yet), but im sure its doable. Maybe then you can afford a science station or two full time. Got one on the go? Well, enjoy your slow trickle of science, or splurge and go broke, your call. *edit :complaining that its broken was reworded, that wasn't the right wording. Given my delay in the edit, figured it was only fair to note the change. -
For now I wouldn't worry about it SgtErikson. If you do buy more ram, or do buy a better GPU, then I would recommend re-installing windows and choosing to make that a 64bit install while you do so you remove the memory ceiling while your at it. until then, leave windows as it is, your not hurting anything. If you reformat for any reason in the near future, you may as well go 64 bit then, there's pretty much no reason not to. 32bit becomes a problem when your system ram, AND your GPU VRam total more than 4gb. If it does, since 32bit can ONLY address 4gb, then the GPU takes its share, and leaves you whatever addresses are left, so with a GPU that has 3gb of VRam, then your only going to have 1gb for windows and programs, doesn't matter if you have 4gb in your system or not. So if you buy a new GPU, do not hesitate to move up to 64bit or you could find yourself with less ram to work with.
-
time warp isn't cheating
Amram replied to Buback's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
not specifically targeting you fatfluffycat, the quote is just ideal for the point is all. And while we're at it the budget should ONLY be paid per REAL fiscal year. That'll teach those evil time-warping cheaters.....better still, and a MUCH simpler thing to implement, lets just remove the timewarp buttons entirely. The code can remain, we'll just disable it. After all, thats not playing it how it was intended to be played at all now is it. The Dev's didn't give us the timewarp functions, so why should we have them? We should play the game the way THEY made it to be played. Do explain how time warping will remain a viable method to sidestep science requirements when you have ongoing expenses, and have to accomplish something in order to earn a payout that can be used to cover said expenses? So the trade-off then becomes keep workiing at your agency, which means lots of activity, and multiple simultaneous missions and a strong bottom line, or send kerbals to Jool, sit back time warped, unlock lots of stuff, but your flat broke and can't afford LKO now so kerbal roving it is. Those of you that harp about being able to warp through science, you are considering how an agency budget will function along with it and how time warping will accrue or deplete that budget right? I mean, you're not just crying foul just because you can, and do realise that the science part of an economy is the smaller piece to a full game economic environment right? -
fixed that for you. You do understand the size of the numbers your tossing around right? Since you've got this all planned out. Answer two simple questions. What's it made of? Approximate if you like. Volume of an elipsoid, 4/3*pi*r1*r2*r3. Assuming a flat disc 50,000mi in radius, and a height that is 25,0000mi in radius.5 miles is 804,476cm, so tack on 4 zeroes since it was 50,000, not 5. 8,044,760,000cm. So: 4/3*pi*8.045x10^9 cm*8.045x10^9 cm * 4.0225x10^9 cm = 1.09053x10^30 cm^3 Why cm^3? Aerogel is 3 miligrams per cm^3 Aircraft grade Aluminum Alloy 2024 is 2.78g/cm^3, or 2780 miligrams. So we're talking 3.27x10^24kg. 3.27x10^21 tons 3.27x10^12 Billion tons 3.27x10^3 Billion billion tons 3.27 Thousand Billion Billion TONS VERY massive. for AEROGEL. To be fair, assumes a solid elipsoid. if Aircraft grade aluminum, 2.78g/cm^3, which is 926.67 times heavier, and assume 90% empty space in all 3 dimensions. 10%^3*926.67 times heavier is only 92.6% as heavy. So 3.27x10^24 = 3.02802x10^24kg If its solid, which it isn't. Say 5% volume is structure? Thats 19/20 empty space internally. 1.514x10^23 1.514x10^2 Billion Billion tons 151.4 Billion Billion tons American Supercarriers are 100,000 tons fully loaded for a fight. 1.514x10^23kg - 10^5 tons 1.514x10^23 - 10^8kg =1.514x10^15 1.514x10^6 Billion 1.514 Million Billion. So this 1.514 Million Billion times more massive, for a completely empty hull. If it were 99% empty space, its still only 1000 times smaller than that, given the size, 1000 times smaller is almost insignificant. Where did you get the idea this ~might be worth NASA's time? This is still well beyond realistic for any timespan for which we can assume NASA will still exist. Its also the epitome of putting all your eggs in one basket.
-
Bigger fairing for atomic engines
Amram replied to kiwiak's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
reading it again, that's probably it. Dunno why that struck me as such a mental idea..... -
Bigger fairing for atomic engines
Amram replied to kiwiak's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
wait, what? Ok, so let me get this straight. Building a 1m stack with an engine, put a decoupler, and get a 2m fairing? Next question, what happens with 2m engines? 3m fairings? -
Quite true. I didn't really touch the opposing side at all in that post, and there are a few decent reasons why a mod can be the better option. Dev's don't have to make it, more variety in how to do something, tailored to an audience outside the core game's target audience, frequently more customisable, and im sure a few others i'd think of if I took the time to really write it out. necessary?
-
Simple really, and the reason why its sometimes irritating to see 'just go get X mod' when people make a suggestion as if that's the better solution. What happens to mods that do not continue to be updated as KSP evolves? They stop working at some point when just the right/wrong change occurs in KSP, and that functionality is lost, maybe indefinitely. Or at least briefly as you await the update that fixes it. If the suggestion was never made, and squad never thought about it, then when mod X fails, will its functions be in stock already? Doubt it. If it was suggested? It may be. What happens to stock items as KSP evolves? Not much if anything at all. With respect to part/function longevity stock parts/functions will near always win vs mods. Then there's how well stock items 'fit in' with er...stock items. I'd say pretty well given that stock is well, stock. Tha's not to say mods cannot fit in very well, they can. Its just if you had to bet on it, and I picked a mod part and a stock part at random without telling you, which would you bet on having the better overall balance with the rest of stock, the stock part or the mod part? Further, people are lazy. Whether or not its asking much, its still a task they must perform, which they don't if something is made stock. To get something, for as little as possible(nothing) is always a goal. So getting it into stock means not having to go get it yourself, that's another win for stock. Even further still, there is yet another way stock wins, tech support / bug fixing. A bug that results from a mod? You might just be on your own and probably cannot expect a fix to the underlying problem that caused it if its a result of some oddness in the game beyond the modder's control. A bug that results from stock? Expect a fix at some point, especially with the game still in development. So no, I don't think the outcome is the same. Similar maybe, but, all things equal stock functionality is always better than requiring a mod to do the same, from the end user's perspective. All that said however, its still nice to find out that there is already a mod which does what your looking for, which solves the problem in the short term.
-
Real-Time Persistence
Amram replied to Somewhere Simulated's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Actually, i think that would be remarkably easy to do. As I understand the advantages of the rails system, which EVERYTHING goes into when your not controlling it, is that you can give it a time, and it can figure out the place where that object will be quite easily. So if they save the time you logged off, then load the time you logged in again, compare, and add the difference to the in game clock, they could do this. Then move everything accordingly, and done. -
you definitely aren't fully getting the concept, and it shows in how you chose to word your position against it. Did you watch the video by chance, he demos exactly what it is, and isn't, and how it works. in particular at 1:55 when he shows the software used to control sensitivity. http://youtu.be/OtK29Xu7e4g?t=1m55s in the real world you turn your head to change where your looking. you can move your eyes as well, but if you look to your right you turn your head as well right? In enabled games, for example arma2, turning your head doesn't turn 'you', it turns your head, which means your view. You can stay facing forward, yet look left or right. You also never stop looking AT the screen, nor does one need to turn their head so far as to have to use the corners of your eyes. The sensitivity settings let you define how much you turn your head to achieve a certain amount in game. So you could setup having a 20° turn of your head, which is about the same as looking at the edge of a 27inch display, result in a 120° rotation of the camera, so that looking at the edge of your display gets you looking over your shoulder. Flight sims: can't see over the dash? sit up. Seriously, just sit up, raising your head raises the camera position as well, giving you a better view over the dash. Need to zoom in on a specific dial, lean in and down towards it. Again, the sensitivities determine how far you need to move to get the effect you want. Its biggest advantage would be in first person EVA, or IVA I think. That and definitely not worthy of a priority just yet....if ever. But it would be cool.
-
im with evilotionCR2 on that one. My life and info are MINE, and not facebook's. Whatever you put up on their site, technically, is now theirs, ever read their terms? Sure you can opt out, but they have this irritating habit of making everything default to opt in, more annoyingly, they reset preferences when they do terms updates all too often, and by that I mean even once is too often.
-
That video is what i use to show people what trackir is and what it can mean to a game. He uses arma2 to demo it, but the same camera control capabilities apply pretty much anywhere you can move one way while looking another. It is a HUGE increase in immersion for FPS and sims that support it because you stop using the keyboard or mouse to look around, YOU look around. Generally situational awareness will shoot through the roof in such games, and situational awareness in such games is often the difference between surviving and dying.
-
Its almost time that we coin a new term similar to Godwin's Law, only insert Mechjeb as the topic it relates to. A topic about what should be added, and before its ever brought up, its bashed and stated that it shouldn't. Remarkable similarity there. Its also apparently every bit as polarising.Aside from several very good suggestions previously mentioned, i'd park my vote for FAR. KSP is so desperately in need of aerodynamics its not even funny anymore and FAR's methods are fairly robust and complete by this point. It actually makes the aero part of AEROspace engineering fun instead of tedius and twitchy and all round odd. Aircraft and SSTO spaceplanes aside, just getting the aerodynamic effects of nosecones and fairings would be a HUGE plus.
-
I'd settle even for the game permitting more than one window for display functions letting us divide up our displays, be they x, 2x, 3x, 6x, or 9x. Has the advantage that the game need not care whether there is 1 or 20 displays, it just creates new windows on demand and lets them show whatever they wanted to show. Windows itself can full screen a window to whatever screen its on. Though I do agree, multi-monitor support itself would be great, and either would compliment this so much.
-
Difficult levels for career mode?
Amram replied to Daveyploo's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Yeah, no worries, I knew where you were coming from, I just think the economics alone have a huge amount of room to provide a very wide range of difficulty, without them even having to get complex with it, and it has the side benefit of mimicing reality True enough on the assumption part, its about all any of us can claim with respect to KSP's future. Though I wasn't aware their stance had also softened in the last few months on that, last i remember was a furor over re-entry and the hardline stance that was given in response. That basically being "it'll be there, so suck it up and enjoy it", so i stand corrected there. More options, even if to disable realism features to alter the difficulty are always a plus. Options are optional and choice is nearly always a good thing. I stand corrected then. I've been less than thorough in combing the forum lately. -
Difficult levels for career mode?
Amram replied to Daveyploo's topic in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Real difficulty, I like that phrase. A quick questionaire, answer for yourself before proceeding, does the following make life harder, or easier for a space egency. Easier or Harder?: Lower wages to hire talented engineers and scientists. Easier or Harder?: Too few engineers and Scientists to work on all projects simultaneously. Easier or Harder?: Smaller staffing requirements for mission control or research projects. Easier or Harder?: Greater funding to accomplish objectives. Easier or Harder?: Various delays and cost over-runs in R&D Easier or Harder?: Greater operating cost of missions due to less efficient engineering/materials/planning/etc. All real world factors in how difficult running a space agency is that coincidentally factor into a game about a space agency quite easily. What could NASA have done if they had never suffered a budget cut? What if after the moon they had received a budget increase and kept it to this day? Would they have gotten more done? Would their job have been easier or harder? Those things you mention PDCWolf, if implemented(which I think is possible/likely) are very likely to be mandatory regardless of difficulty. Look at re-entry, its been made very clear that that will not be optional, and its harder to cope with than those are. Besides that, your trading one grind for another. More missions to earn the same science gaining some per mission, or more missions to place satellites/relays first and then earn the same science earning little/none while placing relays and more later when you can focus on a purely research mission. The end is the same, less science per mission. TL;DR: Money, cost for R&D, cost/availability of skilled/talented/trained staff. There's your real(istic) difficulty.