radonek

One con I can tell: radeon hardware is major trouble under linux. Now, if it were usual case of "need more mods", I wouldn't care. But youngster, yet unspoiled by windows, playing two games that actually work better under linux… I'd say its worth giving it a thought.

Heh, and they say commandline is complicated…

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']I could not agree more. It's the KSP variant of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law"]Parkinson's Law[/URL]: Part count expands to consume available performance.[/QUOTE] Don't forget Whackjobs Addendum: "…and then some more" :-)

At times I've seen windows based bootdisks (for setting up RAID controlers and like) but it was very inflexible stuff, tweaked and hardwired to run factory-tailored piece of software, full stop. It does not make sense anyway - you needed bootdisk (or bootmenu since version 6.2) to tweak DOS because any serious settings (like memory management, drivers, TSR's) could safely be made at boot time only. Modern OSes have no such limitation (with very few hardware related exceptions). And juggling boot disks any time you need to fire up different program is silly idea anyway. You would do better with something like unix* runlevels, but AFAIK windows can't do that.

[quote name='*Aqua*']I sometimes wonder how a KSP 2 with the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO7XhaTGDYg"]engine[/URL] from Infinity Battlescape would feel like. Imagine, no more scene switching, no need for a scaled down solar system, no trouble with floats, nicer graphics and probably no problem to have several solar systems you can go to, Newtonian physics already included, procedual generation of nearly everything which allows for billions of different star systems, planets and moons. Also rings with asteroids in it. <3[/QUOTE] Thats an easy one: you'll end up with something akin to Space Engineeers. They don't have trouble with floats - because everything is in fixed coordinates. They have infinite space - but no celestial mechanics. Beautifull procedural planets, but no orbital physics - you deorbit by aiming nose down (?) and accelerating (!) unit you hit grav well. The have newtonian "physics" that works great for going around stationary objects, but falls apart horribly at incredibly "high" relative speed of 100m/s. They have asteroids (read: imovable rocks) but no moons because that need orbital mechanics again. In short, it looks great but comes nowhere near KSP in terms of "space" physics.

This is bugging me for some time. I understand that tech-tree is supposed to introduce you into new parts at slower pace, which should make things easier. In theory. But in practice, you end up struggling with landers without legs, rovers without wheels, unstable patchwork lift vehicles…

I have experienced something similar on notebook with integrated intel GPU. Core got so hot I couldn't keep hand on bottom side. I did not measured framerate, but cpu's usualy slow down when overheated. How hot it gets?

Yeah, I was also all whackjoby as of late, then I've seen tiny "jetpack" somewhere on forums and spent night playing with tiniest of desings and it was great fun.

[quote name='eggymatrix']export LC_ALL=C [/QUOTE] I don't use this anymore, AFAIK this bug was squashed in 0.25 [quote name='eggymatrix']export LD_PRELOAD="libpthread.so.0 libGL.so.1"[/QUOTE] Sound like bad idea to me. If your binary have trouble finding libraries, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is the way. If you really really need to push things via preload, you really ought to specify what libraries are you pushing. Pthread is core system library and I would be very careful around it, and libGL came from various sources (nowadays mesa or nvidia proprietary blob are most likely) and most people don't need to touch it. [quote name='eggymatrix']export __GL_THREADED_OPTIMIZATIONS=1[/QUOTE] Now this is interresting. Again, is it for nvidia or mesa driver? [quote name='eggymatrix']exec taskset -c 2-3 ./KSP.x86_64[/QUOTE] Given that KSP runs (mostly) in single thread, I don't see point tinkering with afinity.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']Perhaps I'm just unlucky? Or maybe it's popped up and I didn't notice? *shrug*[/QUOTE] Think about it, its losers who start KSP every day who stand a biggest chance. However, pros like you who fire up KSP once a release and then live with it, they don't stand a chance :-) (I've seen my castle on my first KSP day (0.19) so I am definitely loser :-)

Sure, ClF3 is much safer… about the same way two hungry lions are safer then three.

All other bodies have Sphere of Influence, Kerbol probably have one too.

I would like to point you to http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/radiation.php#id--Radiation_Shielding. (Article is not specificaly about NERVA, but being only nuclear engine ever developed, it is featured prominently.)

Yeah KSPs physics is stretchy, but you hardly ever see this. With engines pushing stuff in front of them, you are more likely to see parts buried into each other. And it's not like you have to look far - your own creation with five Reliants in first stage must have sky high TWR and is likely to experience this. Don't worry much about that, it's games way of (not) visualising physics. Game engine can compute stretching and bending for parts subject to force, but it can't display it because visual models are unflexible. If you don't push your luck too hard, everything will settle back. Should you need to enforce some joint, just move camera "inside" parts and apply struts liberaly. - - - Updated - - - Just looking at KER numbers in your screen - you start with TWR of 3.8 (read: way too much), which raises to more then six (oh my god) as you burn through fuel weight, then drop to 2.0 with stagging (still too much), only to raise back to 5.2 (ouch). Now, if you were lifting off some airless body like Moho or Tylo, this would be "only" rough ride of high G's and wasted fuel. but in atmosphere... you are traveling back and forth through you max-Q at crazy-ass speeds. If you did this with real rocket, it would not be "unstable". It would be shred to pieces! Picking right TWR is kinda black magic depending heavily on your ascent profile. But general rules are: 1) if you see red flames, you are going too fast and can/should throttle down. 2) if you throttle down, you could do with smaller engine as well 3) smaller engine == less weight == higher TWR (!) and more delta-v in the end. When shopping for engine, do not ask "can I use more power" because answer is invariably yes. Ask "If I take difference in weight as extra fuel, where will it get me?"

Nah, I was just making fun of misspelled "booster". Sorry for wasting your time. Now, if you were to start with Sputnik or such, I would like to give it a try, but I don't have time for week long missions.

Me! Take me! I am the best!

I'm not looking forward to Unity upgrade as far as linux version is concerned. Its a big change and big changes carry big chances of regressions. Even windows KSP is bound to ship some never-seen-before bugs, and linux port of unity kinda lags behind. So there is real chance we will have to live with some silly error like before. (older versions of unity had, at times, trouble with localization, mouse input and GL shaders, to name just ones I've seen with my very eyes). This is not to say I don't want new Unity - I merely don't expect much of first iteration. As for other linux gaming quirks – steer clear of AMD cards, their linux drivers sucks. As for special controllers and such - YMMW. Depends whether particular piece of hardware is supported by linux kernel (= works good), vendor driver (= trouble) or not at all. Do not believe vendors about linux support - their view of support is frequently limited to distributing crapware. If you want to give it a try, find a linux distribution to your liking and google THAT for support. Disclaimer: I have both windows and linux ksp. However, I have not played windows version since mouse issues in Unity were resolved.

No. Seriously. Sure, you need a bit more then what ideal "suicide burn with infinite TWR" numbers say, but if you need to double that, you are doing something very very wrong. Probably landing with TWR of 1.001?

Not necessarily. 909 weights half a ton. If half a ton minus weight of an ant (pun inteded) of fuel gives you more delta-v then what you save with 909, ant is a better option. Ant is a good choice for really tiny probes.

Fear not. If you can do rendezvous, you can refuel. If you can refuel, you don't have to leave a single kerbal behind. I actually begin my interplanetary excursions by sending tractor/tanker ship. Only real danger is landing, and you can train that on mun or kerbin. KER can compute delta-v for you (and also TWR which is important for landers). After using it for a while I can get some idea just by looking at ship. To sum it up: 1) Once you have maneuver node showing intercept with destination SOI, you can't get lost. Sure, burn may not go as perfect as node would have it but that can be corrected with little delta-v. No real danger here. 2) Breaking/capture is usualy easy. In emergency, you can always abort and plot course home (on nonideal trajectory, but with lander fuel as a bonus). Again, nothing really dangerous. 3) Landing and lifting back to orbit IS a bit of a jump, but if you can do it on mun, you are 90% set. Delta-v map will show you what you need, KER will tell you what you have, Mun will provide training ground. Just stay clear of Eve :-) 4) Getting back is probably easiest. Sure, you probably wont have lander to serve as fuel reserve, but you will probably have some leftover fuel anyway. And you dont really need to land anyway. 5) Nothing of above applies to Moho. For me, hardest target so far would be Gilly. Not dangerous at all, but catching with its tiny SOI is a fiddly job. Also, having lander to accelerate _down_ just doesn't feel right :-)

Most answers here are incredibly anthropocentric. Whout knowing more about aliens and how they percieve world, I think it would by proper to ask what they want to know. And I bet answer would be along the lines of biochemistry, gene sequences, mathematical works, geophysics and climate models. "Culture" is mostly information white noise.

Sounds safer then multigigawatt microwave lasers.

Not only computers. Any complicated factory process will need to settle down, tweak construction quirks, train workforce… Unless whole thing is performed by infallible robots from perfect plan, every factory/rafinery/chemical processing facility etc. can take years to begin function properly. There are also technological steps to be made - you cant build, say, steel mill, from scratch. You will have to spend lots of time with precusor technologies building tools for the next step. Computer chips? Easy (in relative sense, of course). If you have required knowledge, its just some very coplicated machines and processes. Now, building a powerplant - thats not just setting up some machines. Thats lot of work. You know, carrying heavy stuff to places. So, I'd still say decades, and most of that time would be spent building industrial backbone.

This actually happened. Kinda. Tzarist russia before bolsheviks revolution was underdeveloped agricultural nation with almost nonexistent industry, all science and industry imported from west and ravaged with war to boot. Forty years later they beaten americans to space. Chairman tried same thing in fifties, only faster… and failed miserably. So my guess would be on the order of decades. I just have trouble imagining benevolent dictator performing this.

250M string is not a problem if you have enough memory. However, you should take a look at mmap()