Darnok
-
Posts
1,266 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Darnok
-
-
Without mods its even worse... 140% CPU usage
Tasks: 205 total, 3 running, 201 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
%Cpu(s): 32,0 us, 13,1 sy, 0,0 ni, 53,8 id, 0,3 wa, 0,0 hi, 0,8 si, 0,0 st
KiB Mem: 5970036 total, 5815344 used, 154692 free, 33748 buffers
KiB Swap: 7323644 total, 8356 used, 7315288 free. 1960424 cached Mem
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7010 darnok 20 0 2880624 1,688g 45620 R 143,7 29,7 11:33.88 KSP.x86_64
I am running KSP on linux, ^ measuring CPU usage with top command.
I got this LC_ALL=C LD_PRELOAD="libpthread.so.0 libGL.so.1" __GL_THREADED_OPTIMIZATIONS=1 ./KSP.x86_64 from thread about linux performance
EDIT: It is even worse, when I restarted game and first entered into editor CPU usage is 170-180%, zero parts, no buttons being pushed, nothing.
After I loaded any craft it decreased to 130-140%, IMO editor is initialized more than twice after you enter building and after you load craft it has two instances.
Btw I removed every ship from orbit (rescue or delete).
-
Why KSP in editor mode is using 130+% of my i5 CPU? Even now when I am looking at my browser not and changing things in KSP it is 120-130%.
EDIT: It is in pure stock and with mods mechjeb2, alarmclock, asteroid day
-
It might be easier to capture whole satellites with a net than tiny pieces of one travelling at 10's of thousands km/s
If you can fire piece of metal using magnetic field you can also change its path using magnetic field
-
I like Habitat Pack
-
can we nuke the moon for the conspiracy theorist? We could have then walk off a football field sized picture of niel armstrong. We could paint part of the moon to look like swiss cheese, or a big pizza pie. We could make a giant smiley face on the moon.
I don't get this part
We could test the effects of low gravity on human physiology.
we could test the effect of same on plant growth.
We didn't tested that on ISS?
We could test how much thickness of moon dust is required to attenuate 3 types of damaging radiation.
We could test equipment for digging into the moons surface, e.g. bores, wells and mine shafts.
We could see if the level of H20 increases with depth of the surface.
We could test equipment for leveling the surface or test materials for making a runway or permanent landing site.
ESA have plans for unmanned mission building base on Moon, why would you need to $pend lots of money to do same job in manned mission?
We could plan for a science station.
We could place different telescopes for automatic survey of NEO.
We could plan for a Keck like observatory.
I was thinking about... what would be cheaper to resupply and maintain space station on Moons orbit or Moon base?
Even making SETI antennas on far side of the Moon orbit would be nice (no radio signals from Earth).
Few days ago I watched video about Zubrin and his Mars Direct mission and there, he and his friends, repeated few times that people in NASA have no leaders for bold missions.
They love their money, low expectations and their jobs are great, they just dislike any progress, risk and stress and from what I can see it fits perfectly to NASA.
If I would have to guess what are NASA plans for next 15 years I would put my money on space station on Moon orbit. After 2020 ISS will be gone, most of people in NASA will be unemployed, their big project is gone they are no longer needed. So next logical step would be to make next space station that would let keep their jobs for years, but they can't build one more station on Earth orbit, they have to build it further. Mars is too far, Moon seems great strategic choice, if you consider what is going on in space market.
NASA has Orion that would let crew and resupply missions to fly to Moon orbit, SpaceX Dragon v2, Soyuz and Boeing CST-100 (confirmation needed about CST and Soyuz?!?) are unable to go into deep space missions like that. So NASA would keep their money and would get rid of competition with one simple move
-
Apollo mission answered important question for all humans... can we land on the moon? It was also shown as a need for the American people.
What question can answer Orion mission? What need it can satisfy?
-
According to most people in here we humans are like stupid monkeys that reached their intellectual limits, we are unable to learn any more, we are unable to learn from AI, we are unable to adapt and evolve in natural way any more.
Well I think you are wrong, current education system is from late 18th century and capabilities of what we can learn educating children this way is limited, but we as humans have no limits in learning, we just have to change methods to go higher and faster. We can learn faster if we want to and here is the problem you think that someone should do this for you, someone should give you super ability to learn faster just like AI or modify your DNA, nope it doesn't work like that.
Argument that AI will learn faster is interesting, of course it will, but not because it is AI, only because we are focused more on authorities in science than on science itself.
Scientists are limited by thinking that work of people before them is defining universe, while it is not true. Every discovery in science is only interpretation made by person, nothing more, same person as you or me.
Those interpretations comes from observation or at least they should. All those smart books and equations just describe other people interpretations of universe, there are not define universe, how it works, what it is made of or how it become what it is. There are more artificial models of universe, its behaviours and attempts to fit numbers into those models than observations of real world. Science first is trying to fit numbers made interpretation and then observe... that is wrong way, we should first observe and then try to understand what we have seen.
Sadly so many people confuse those things or is educated to believe in those interpretations and hypothesis, for them equation made 100 years ago define limits of universe! Just because 100 years ago someone made hypothesis doesn't mean it is correct, he could be misinterpret many things, he didn't knew many things, why you are following he way of thinking?
Those people are no longer able to make proper observations, they are bound to interpretations and models made by others. AI will have no bounds and limits like that and won't respect any authorities, won't respect rules or laws either, so it will develop faster, but that doesn't mean we can't keep up if we change our methodology.
-
'K, example scenario, you are in low Earth orbit, orbiting stably on the other side of an enemy...
I am talking about scenario where ships are less than 90º from each other.
So shooting simple projectile in straight line would be possible. yes projectile would change into fireball revealing your position if you would aim in atmosphere, but its apoapsis would be closer to the Moon than the Earth (I would have to wait few days for those bullets to come back?) and I didn't said I would fire single projectile and wait it hits target it would be firestorm.
Projectiles should be made out of something that can melt under high temperature, so you wouldn't bomb people on Earth.
First I would shoot projectiles that would make longer orbit and hit your side or almost from back, so you wouldn't detect them in atmo
As for guided missiles, I know they are different thing... but you could send object that can only increase its velocity and when fuel is depleted it explodes changing into small projectile storm, it could be build in way that it also explodes when it is heated by lasers.
-
Rune. Firing a railgun to a moving target behind a planet is an absurdly bad idea, BTW. Think about the orbital dynamics a minute, you who I assume plays KSP...
Why it is bad idea? It is great idea! Imagine you have two railguns on your ship. one is aiming to hit target in shortest orbit (in close range fight straight line) and other one target enemy ship side, because with curved orbits you can hit your enemy almost from behind
-
12/12. If you were to ask me about the author of the Polio vaccine, I wouldn't know but the other choices were obviously wrong.
The demographic data was pretty interesting though, so thanks.
Parrots definitely could. Some could probably learn all the capitals in the world and react to hearing the country's name by telling you its capital.
This is exactly how it is working, even monkey can be taught sign language and as "answer" make set of signs representing capital name, but that doesn't mean that monkey is smart
Most of people thinks that memorizing all the capitals names or any other things makes them smart, it is not, it just makes access to that knowledge faster.
What really makes you smart is ability to interpret question in many ways and ability to find and verify right answer for those interpretations or invent right answer, if nobody answered that question before you.
If I read results of this experiment correctly women are 10-15% less smart (depends on question) than man... 3... 2... 1... fight
-
If I would be an alien how would I could use you...
I don't care about your resources since resources are common on my planet. I don't need your technology... it is crap, you couldn't even detect my ships, I had to contact you first.
I am not interested in your culture or art, I have my own, but the thing is I need army to defend my culture from hostile "neighbours".
I can see your species is very mobile, quick, slick and easy to transport, I could buy many healthy units, they could be used as soldiers by my civilization.
Those soldiers can adapt, they are more or less intelligent, self educating and very aggressive killing machines. Since my technology is at least 100+ years ahead of yours... it should be easy to build combat space suits, weapons and ships for five fingers creatures. I can do even more, I can increase your aggression and body regeneration.
You are cheaper than mechanical soldiers when it comes to energy usage and maintenance, since your soldiers can't be hacked and used to fight against me.
Hmm instead of just get rid of broken units during and after battle, I can even convert those broken units into energy source for healthy units, without additional costs because your digestive system copes well with that kind of food processing. And my knowledge about neuronal cells is sufficient to remove any psychological trauma that may occur after battles and meals, in other words I can remove "bad memories", so soldiers will go into next battle as brand new and fearless units.
Sadly I am not the first who thought about this
-
You must be new to Holywood...
I am not "new", I just criticize them for doing that. They won't change it if everyone will learn to accept what they are doing?
If you don't criticize them you are helping them to make more money on things that are common lies.
-
You are right, Kip Thorne actually discusses this in The Science of Interstellar. The dust cloud in reality would red shift and blue shift on opposite sides but for the movie they thought it would confuse the audience rather than think it realistic.
So instead making educative speech in movie they prefered to change things in way that uneducated person would think "it is working like that"!
Isn't that a harmful influence of movies? I thought media was made so we could communicate and educate faster, not to affirm people in the conviction that their ignorance or ideas, not supported by any evidence or studies, are correct.
-
It would be nice to have some structural parts procedural or in many sizes, if procedural have anti-lego meaning for you:
- TVR-200 Stack Bi-Coupler - we should pick how many nodes it has and make it also for 3.75m size
- Structural Fuselage - in all sizes and add ability to pick length of that part
- Modular Girder Segment and M-Beam 200 I-Beam - should come in 2.5m size and we should pick what length it has
- M-1x1 Structural Panel - ability to pick size for example 1x3, 5x5, 10x10, 10x20 (if you want to build SpaceX landing barge deck as one part)
- FL-A5 Adapter - in all sizes please
- The Not-Rockomax Micronode for 1.25m and 2.5m
- Rockomax HubMax Multi-Point Connector for 2.5m and 3.75m
- more Big-S wings in shapes like Wing Connector Type A and Wing Connector Type B, we have now nice Big-S wings, but those as for edges now we need something in middle of the wing
- Advanced Grabbing Unit - in 0.625m size for really small crafts
- Inline Clamp-O-Tron - 2.5m and 3.75m version of this part with 2.5m docking port would be nice, it can have RCS fuel tanks build-in
- Octagonal Strut and Cubic Octagonal Strut - for 1.25m, 2.5m and 3.75m, because why not!
More parts:
What if we would have 3 eras in Kerbal, early, middle and future.
Each era would give us different part sets, of course in sandbox we should be able to use all parts, for carrier mode it could add some interesting look&feel and new features.
This idea came to me when I was reading about remaking or removing some old parts, Devs doesn't have to do that, if some parts look old that is good they can use them to create new feature in KSP.
I see no problem in having 3 different capsules all for 3 kerbals, they should look differently and have different stats and maybe futuristic capsule should have build-in engines, fuel tanks (like Dragon V2), chutes, antennas, RCS thrusters and/or probe cores to unmanned remote flight tests.
KSP should allow people to use some more imagination, not only on how to put things together, but also how space exploration may look in near future. How to build space station on Pluto's orbit, we would need there better power source than solar panels, for example larger RTG, wind turbine for Laythe (make "scanners" that measure wind speed), small geothermal power plant for some vulcanic planets (add hot spots detection for scanners).
I know we need to have parts balanced, so IMO to create illusion of technological progress in KSP more "advanced/futuristic" parts should have not only futuristic look, but also additional features.
Like I mentioned about capsules, we could also have different mix of features some probe cores could have larger batteries, others build-in antennas or solar panels.
Futuristic fuel tanks could have build-in RCS thrusters or landing legs.
That kind of approach should make illusion of balanced progress in carrier mode, player should be able to build more and larger crafts/stations/bases still being bellow his part count limit and he would be able to do things faster, because time is also resource in this game
-
My two cents: I would prefer if the next update is released later. That gives more time to find problems and more time to add polish.
I am against this, IMO better would be to release sooner and then Squad should take month or more to check bugs section and make patches every week.
-
Proper grammar and spelling are important if, like most people, you don't want to read complete word vomit.
IMO talking on topic is importanter
This ""Citizens need to be empowered to make good decisions in their private lives - be it about vaccinations, mobile phone masts or climate change," she will tell the festival, at Bradford University. " - looks more like spreading propaganda than education.
"We need to change mindsets of teachers and parents alike," she will say, "to ensure that both genders get equal airtime in the classroom, that boys don't hog the apparatus." - not this again, if they are going to force children to do things they dislike just because someone things girls are as good at math as boys it is going to do more harm than good.
Taught mathematics, analytical thinking and that specialization is not such a good idea.
You have to develop in many areas at the same time to be able to understand how the entire mechanisms works and what will be impact of that mechanism on your life and environment, not just a very narrow fragment of mechanism like we are taught today.
Students should also be taught that what makes them different from animals is the ability to predict the results of their own actions. Even more they can also predict activities of the society in which they live. If today people can not predict what impact on their lives will have change of the law, means they are uneducated on how society and laws making are working.
-
As the earth rotates during the day and goes around the sun during the year, the only place one observatory couldn't look is a spot too close to the opposite pole of the earth. (Example: an observatory near the north pole would not be able to see a bit of the sky around the south pole.) However, there are telescopes in the northern regions of the earth and the southern regions, so their fields of view overlap and cover the areas the other hemisphere would miss. Thus, mo telescope can see everywhere at once, but it's just geometry that no part of the sky can not be observed by any telescopes at all.
Yes Earth rotates around the Sun, but from Earth this movement doesn't look like that, also movement of planets doesn't look like they where on orbits around the Sun, it looks like this
behind that planet is also cone of space we can't see. Of course over time that cone is moving same as planet and Earth being on different place of its own orbit, but here comes next question... what part of hemisphere you can observe during one session in observatory?
There is another thing for example Pluto since it was discovered in 1930 didn't even made half of its orbit... Pluto orbital period 247.94 years, years since discovery 85.
And now we are talking about planet or small star that is much farther than Pluto, so since 1900 how far this object could be move on its orbit?
This again?
WISE infrared orbital telescope did a whole sky scan in 2012 with capabilities of finding Neptune-sized object all the way to 700AU, and Jupiter sized object to approximately 1 lightyear. And it haven't found any big object out there.
There is a theory called Nemesis which says that Sun is gravitationally bound to a small red dwarf star, which returns on its elliptical orbit into Solar system every 26 million years causing extinctions on Earth. That star would have been visible by a small telescope if it existed, not even talking about WISE IR scans. The same thing goes for a brown dwarf in outer Solar system.
I don't think we will find anything beyond the size of Mercury or Mars out there. Accretion disc around young Sun was very scattered so far away and it couldn't form anything big IMO.
Unless we are looking small star covered with Dyson sphere
-
Yes for inflatable heat shields!
I would also like space plane heat shield, tweakable that would add additional protection and mass to wings and plane parts, SpacePlane+ mod had this as far as I remember.
It should allow to decrease temperature resistance of many parts, so I could replace large docking port with proper heat shield on my dragon-like-capsule and use those tweaks on my space planes.
Right now we really can use docking ports as heat shields :/ and I remember some post from Squad that we can't have harsh heat effect or most of space planes will not survive flight.
-
I am confused, what this thread is about?
-
Do you see the difference?
One is whining and complaining, serving no purpose than to potentially make the whiner feel better, the other is offering helpful suggestions, and while those suggestions may not work, it is clear that the the intent is to be helpful.
One is also much easier than the other.
If you are not offering specific steps to address the issue, you are not being helpful, just negative. (Note: 'Fix it' and 'Make an optimization pass' are not specific steps, they are cop-outs that mostly ignore the difficulties involved)
Ok, you are right that calling someone medicore is bit harsh, but if you are saying later that they made game where you can build craft with hundreds parts and each part resources are checked per frame then it is hard to call that kind of skills professional. I understand that this is first game made by Squad, so some things can be forgiven.
Also I was wondering why in 1.0+ KSP is running slow and how much it is temperature checks and new aero fault. I hope they excluded per frame checks if part is inside cargo bay or not.
IMO we have here few people that would love to think about better algorithms, but for example I have no idea how KSP is made. I doubt it game is going to be open source, but some data/manual how things work would be great and Squad could implement best ideas just like they are making best mods stock.
-
Why ? This (what you say) is exactly how Lamborghini was born.
Yes, some people have guts. Enough to stop complaining and prove they can do better.
That doesn't make argument "do better or shut up" valid. That is only basic rule of economy, if someone does something bad and you can do it better you will make more money than he does
-
Don't worry, it's only terrible when you counter it with a strawman argument.
What are you talking about? If you want to produce cars you need company, if you want produce software (game is software) you also need company... now look at your argument, we can't criticize software if we can't make better software is same as we can't criticize car if we can't make better car.
Your argument is nonsensical and it doesn't matter on what kind of company we are talking about. Every customer has right to say his opinions of course those opinions should be constructive not insulting.
Also I don't understand why people are overreacting and think criticism is hostile attack on their work. Criticism is good, it helps your product to get better, of course if decide to listen your customers, but if you ignore them or think they are attacking you or have no idea what they are talking about, because they don't have experience, you won't make any use of customer opinions and fail in your business. Remember if everyone would be able to make their own game nobody would pay Squad for their game, this rule apply to any business
Problem of lots of critics is IMO result of "early access" development path. Look at Fallout or Baldurs Gate two epic or even legendary games, how they were made?
Their producers had great idea, but their development path was different they just made investment, released 1.0 and risk paid off.
Today we have many early access games, that starts in same way as those two great games... with a very unique and brilliant idea, but people are too afraid to risk money on their ideas. This is sad, because if you think your dreams are not worth to risk your money, why I should risk my and buy results of your work?
KSP started same way as those two great games, but its development path is different, Squad didn't risked money to create finished product and then release 1.0, so KSP is not yet optimized and polished.
Instead they started to create and release step by step unfinished product... alpha versions, people noticed potential and uniqueness of KSP and started to play it.
This is path where all of early access indie game starts and this way many fails, because at some point old players, that were playing game for years since 0.1 version, are going to get bored with game (its content and features), they will want more or in different way (more realistic, less realistic, more sandbox, more carrier mode etc etc), while game is still far from being finished. Of course that is not game creators mistake, you can't make players happy, in early access game, if they are impatient.
New players are still coming, due to adverts or friends sharing informations about "cool games"... they see game first time and ask for new things.
Now what game owners should do, listen old-players and add new features and content or finish, polish and optimize game for brand new-players that will buy it and play for the first time?
IMO early access development path is pitfall... very easy start, without risk of losing money and resources, on wrong idea, but you have more problems over time than in classic game development path. Time is also factor, because software is getting old very fast, same as UI designs and graphics. How to finish game with both groups, old and new players, being happy after years of development?
Also any dev guides I've seen saying you don't polish and don't optimize unfinished software, so Squad should make one update without new features, just spend all time at fixing bugs and optimizations, after they will feel game is finished.
-
Translation: I like complaining about it more than doing something about it.
We have a idiom where I'm from... "Put up or Shut up". You think you can do better than Squad? You think their programmers and artists are "mediocre"? Go make your own game and prove it, otherwise stop talking. It is getting really old, the dead horse has been beaten, now you are beating the dust that used to be the dead horse. Squad knows you disapprove.
You think you can do better than put-any-car-making-company-name? You think their engineers are medicore? Go and make your own company and make better cars...
I do understand that some critics are written because people like to criticize, but this argument is terrible.
-
We just need gizmos to edit fairings shape?
KSP editor performance...
in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
Posted
max physics delta-time per fram 0.03
frame limit: default and tested with 60 CPU usage still 180% after first load of editor
Not yet.