Dichotomy

Hello All Hope this is OK to post. Just posting on the off chance that someone wants to trade with me for a digital copy (STEAM) of JUST CAUSE 2 (with bundled PRIMA STRATEGY E-GUIDE) ? I am interested in being traded, TRADING CARDS and GEMS, possibly with the addition of backgrounds/emoticons if you really get stuck. I am open to cards from quite a list of games, including : 1. MOST WANTED ============= Kerbal Space Program 2. NEXT BEST ========== Crusader Kings 2 Democracy 3 Reus The Walking Dead 1 XCOM 3. GOOD ======== FTL Outlast Plague Prison Architect Project Zomboid Sid Meiers Civilizaton V Sid Meires Beyond Earth Space Hulk 4. OTHER ========================= AI : War Fleet Command Chainsaw Warrior Dont Starve Dying Light Europa Univalis IV Forest Of Doom Game Dev Tycoon Gauntlet Gods Will Be Watching Gratuitous Space Battles Killing Floor Organ Trail Payday 1 Payday 2 Sang Foid : Tales of Werewolves Sid Meiers Ace Patrol Surgeon Simulator Talisman The Escapists The Ship This War of Mine Tropico 4 Tropico 5 Universe Sandbox LOW VALUE =========== A Valley Without Wind Antichamber Battle vs Chess Dead State Deadlight Deadnaut Frozen Synapse Jagged Alliance - Back In Action Krater Lunar Flight Monaco Neo Scavenger Omerta - City of Gangsters Paper's Please Sid Meier's Ace Patrol : Pacific Skies Sir You Are Being Hunted Trapped Dead War For The Overworld Worms Revolution NOTE1 : Low value cards are approximately worth (to me) about 40% of a KSP card. Assume its pretty linear from there I would appreciate a selection of cards, rather then all from one game. Also FOIL's will be given extra value depending on the set they are from (generally from 2 - 5 depending on the game). GEM's are worth approximately 200-400 a card. NOTE2 : I always hate it when someone posts a trade request but does not give you any idea of a ballpark figure. So I will do my best to avoid this mistake. For me, if the cards were all high value I would say about 25-35 cards. This is just a ballpark figure as it does depend on the trade. Hope it helps. Finally I am a card collector, not a card trader, so I am only interested in cards/gems. I am looking for a fair trade, not one that disadvantages either side. Thanks for reading. All the best. ADDENDUM : Please respond to this thread if you are interested and we can "negotiate" on steam. My steam username is "Dichotomy".

Sorry, but that was glorious. I am still laughing. Thankyou for making my day.

In regards to Lagrange points. I would have thought introducing a new SOI with No/Low mass at its centre, would solve the problem. Given you can only be under the effect of a single SOI in KSP. Perhaps this would not work and I am over simplifying the system. I don't know enough about how the SOI integrate with other KSP systems/mechanics to know if a quick and dirty solution like this would work. A little disappointed by what you said about heat. I don't know why but accounting for heat (in its various forms is a really cool aspect of the game for me , or at least I think it will be). AM seriously looking at Deadly -Reentry ATM, and will look around for other heat MODS. Your comments on the 20km limit, were heartening. I was a bit concerned by that one. Still makes me nervous about satellites, especially since I may just decouple/launch them at barely newtonian speeds Thanks for all your responses. - - - Updated - - - Thanks for the link (even if it wan't intended for me!). Will keep an eye on this. - - - Updated - - - Thankyou for your reply and greeting !!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes I do want realism, but it is more realism of mechanics, rather then just plain realism. That last sentence is confusing even me, i will try to do better ... For example the re-scaling of the Kerbols diameter, while keeping an earth like Newtonian gravitational force is fine by me. Its more : given a series of assumed constants/forces/etc does the world behave in a reliable and logical way. Thats more the realism I am after. I have actually been looking at that exact thread (realism overhaul) over the past few hours. I think I am going to keep my MODS to a minimum to begin with, and really only looking at modding the parts of the main game that are the least realistic/immersive (either due to a poor model, or not being accounted for). Perhaps I also might include a few utility MODS like Kerbol Alarm Clock. You guys/gals really are a great community. Really expected for this thread to degenerate into a "why are you trying to mod the game when you have so little experience etc etc etc". I really like to savour my first playthrough of a unique game like this, and I have a week or so to kill till I can play so learning about the mechanics and choosing MODS is on the agenda. On a totally unrelated note : SCANSAT is awesome !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - - - Updated - - - Thankyou for this I will give it a look. I have been fairly careful about looking a gameplays videos so far as I didn't want to spoil to much of the "cool moments" ie eclipses, seeing Jool (is that what its called) for the first time etc. This looks pretty safe though Thankyou for the link and (from newbs like me) for taking the time to create it. EDIT : Have just watched the link. Very professionally done. Unfortunately for me, none of this was new, but both kudos for the vid and thanks for the heads-up. I am sure it will help many new players. Good ol' Kepler. I remember doing a Year 5 project on him and Copernicus, way back when......

"You just CAN think of what to set the starting funds too " ?????????????????????????? OK 238 Funds if you add the missing "T" to your OP.

Hello I am a new player who is contemplating which MODS to use before my first playthrough. I have played around with KSP a little a while back, but little more then that outside of forum lurking. I have a high-threshold for failure, and prefer realism/immersive type MODS. I was hoping that other forumgoers could recommend a few MODS, where they felt that the stock game was inadequate, and that the MOD was both stable and complete. The only MOD I am set on ATM is SCANSAT. QUESTION 1 Not mod related, but didn't want to saturate the forums with another seperate post. I have read the wiki and other articles regarding kerbal stats ie COURAGE AND STUPIDITY. The general consensus is that these only pertain to how kerbals behave (primarily when in danger IIRC). Unfortunately MOST of the articles I read were quite out of date, and none were post 1.0. Can any one tell me if these stats have any mechanic based functionality ? QUESTION 2 These are the MODS I was interested in : 1. ASTRONOMERS VISUAL PACK 2. FAR. 3. Deadly Re-Entry 4. Finally can anyone recommend a life support MOD that requires a life support to be accounted for (simple or complex), but still allows for the possibility of rescuing stranded kerbals (I like the idea of this)? I was looking at TACS, but think it probably rules out any rescues gievn the timescales involved. These are the questions I was interested in : A. Does the MOD account for the stock science tree, and integrate any new parts/systems into logical nodes of the tree (that do not unbalance the player's intended progression through the tree) ? B. Does the MOD account for currency in career mode (if applicable), with balanced costs associated with any new parts/systems. C. Any other notable impressions/comments pertaining to the MOD ? D. Is anyone using any of the above MOD's ATM with stock v1.02 and if so are they stable. Finally does anyone have any other MOD suggestions they think might be of interest ? Thanks for any replies in advance, and apologies for the rather open ended and long question.

So does this mean Kerbals have finally found a use for food? Fattening up humans, the sneaky little sods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well done mate! Kudos for both finding, and sticking to your dream. I would wish you all the best, but I do not think your future will depend on the generosity of fortune. Instead may I say I admire your resolve. Take it easy

Thankyou for your response. Can I assume you would be suggesting FAR and Deadly Re-Entry then ? I have not used either and I am in two minds about their inclusion. I am a bit of a realism nut, but my background knowledge is not sufficient to be able to determine what spacecraft parts are not performing in a realistic manner, vs those that are (unless it is egregiously so). So #2 and #3, concern me more then #4 . #1 I had always assumed would be a cut down model, so not really disappointed, when I didn't really consider it a possibility in the first place. Thankyou again for your insights. - - - Updated - - - Oh OK, (faceplam for me). And here I was thinking I was being funny I see what you mean now. That does sound more than a little extreme. Thanks for edifying me.

That made me laugh. I wont be using timewarp for anything remotely circumventory (if thats not a word I am coining it!). I found this thread : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/86334-KSP-vs-IRL-reaction-wheels and will be reading it after I finish this post ! Thanks for the heads up. Hey just realised you were the OP!!!! Small world on KSP ..... I am more worried about the opt-out exploits, rather then the opt-in (or should that be the other way around, IDK). As I intend to play a custom career mode, (no do-overs, deaths on, all the other realism settings on etc, but not sure about where the sliders should be, probably either normal or moderate for the sliders. I don't mind if I have to run out of money and start over.), I want to make sure that I consider the implications of my design and the limitations of the world I am designing for. So I intend to go in with as much mechanic info (not gameplay stuff) as I can. Plus I have a week or so to kill until I can get my hands dirty, so this whets the appetite. Thanks again - - - Updated - - - Perhaps they have been "rifled" Hmm I will have to consider this. Assuming I am understanding you, is this a consequence of the atmospheric model they are using ? Thanks for the reply

Thankyou very much for your comprehensive answer. Exactly what I was looking for. Sounds good. The water issues surprised me a little, I thought KSP would modal these a little better, but as you say its not a huge game focus so ....... I do hope the Reentry Heat issues are patched. I don't quite know why but accounting for reentry heat appeals to me. If I may : Does the game account for other forms of heat ie direct solar radiation, superheated atmospheres etc. The under 20km caveat concerns me a little, but I did know that one existed, I assume its so that discarded stages and space debris don't end up hogging cpu cycles and memory over time. I assume care must be taken when dealing with satellites etc. Thanks again for your help. BTW I have been looking at the various mods for KSP and have only settled on one one so far : SCANSAT. Am very happy it has been recently updated to the current version, and that it integrates with the stock scanning parts. Can't really explain it, but the scanning aspect is probably the bit I am looking forward to the most about KSP. I am currently perusing a few of the more realism related MODS, ie FAR, deadly reentry and life-support. Not really sure how far I want to go, or how balanced/complete any of these MODS are yet. - - - Updated - - - Excellent ! Am quite stoked about the engine heat modelling. Inverse square solar panel efficiency is nice too, had not really thought about it one way or the other. 1. Ha - 5KM drop into the water Given the nature of the kerbals I can live with this 2. I was kinda assuming the rockets would be more "elastic" then RL, from some of the second hand stories on these forums I am assuming they are still "breakable" enough 3. This one I knew about but do wish that had to be taken into account, even if it was limited and they went into some kind of hibernation when stranded (to open up the possibility of rescues). 4. Hmmm,yes I see your point.Torn on this one, but do agree it is probably better for gameplay without the latency. I guess it is not really different to the lack of latency with manned missions. In those instances I will "rationalize" it by assuming I am controlling the pilot, rather then HQ, and with the probe core I will assume I am playing the probes "ai". Thanks for the info. - - - Updated - - - Yes I was wondering about Lagrange points, shame about those, I was really hoping they existed. I was naively assuming SQUAD had implemented something like what you suggested. I think LP would add many unique gameplay opportunities. I will have to have a hunt around for a MOD, or just hope SQUAD adds the functionality at a later date. Thanks for your help

Hello All FULL DISCLOSURE : I have owned KSP since it first appeared as EA on steam, but have refrained from playing it (other then some brief testing about a year or so ago), until now. Its been a long wait, but finally I will get to play it in anger . The reason for mentioning this is that there is much I am naive about regarding the game (despite being a forum lurker for the past couple of years). So apologies for any such idiocy on my part I was hoping some of you might be able to answer the question below for me (or point me to a readable link that can help out). I have read much of the wiki (trying to avoid gameplay spoilers, mechanics only) and a few guides here and there but have yet to find a list. QUESTION What real-world forces/phenomenons does KSP account for, and of these which are calculated, vs approximated ? (Are there any noticeable absences ?) My reasons for asking this is to answer questions along the lines of, "what am I designing my ships to account for"? I am probably going to get way too into this game, but its been a long wait Thanks in advance to anyone who can spare some time to help me out. EDIT : Just realised this should probably be in the gameplay/mechanics section. Would it be possible for a helpful mod to shift it for me please. Apologies for the inconvenience.

@Torham234 I considered this but figured that anyone that was trying for the most minimal build would still have a part count average/median that there craft meandered around. I also thought that differing people could have vastly differing ideas with regard to "minimal". Anyway I decided against it as it would not allow for a numeric representation of those people. Thanks for your input. @Everyone Thanks everybody for all the votes and replies, managed to get a decent sample size IMO. Very helpful (and interesting), from my perspective. My goal for this POLL was to determine where the middle ground lay, with respect to part count, for KSP forum-poster's craft designs. As there have been "many" threads detailing MAXIMAL PART COUNT DESIGNS, I figured one that was more representative of a given players "average/median" would be interesting to submit. I also wondered if people were limiting themselves solely for performance reasons, or if there were other gameplay/philosophical considerations at play ? I find it pretty interesting that the results (outside of the WJ Fan Club!) are relatively evenly spread about. @Whackjob Your vote is self-referential ! But given your response adds instant kerbal-cred to my POLL, I will let it slide

Smart Arse. Yeah OK, should perhaps have revised it, was trying for clarity for those that only read the titles and not much else.

Apologies, please blame my newbness. I was naively assuming that in-orbit part count was much less restricted then it appears to be, also being new I am more focused on the launch side of things So you are most likely right. Might create another POLL should this one get enough interest, same question but pertaining to ORBIT only. @ALL Thanks for the replies/votes. Hope they keep coming.

Thanks for this. Will keep it in mind.

Thankyou for this, I do appreciate it. I am a programmer so the tools are not an issue, although I havn't programmed under LINUX for about 7 years now, so .... Thankyou for the heads up anyway. Given it will be a hassle to do it on my current system just for KSP, I think will just either wait for my next system build next year or play with a restricted part count. Thanks again for your help.

OK Full Disclosure I am a KSP newbie and am interested in the PART COUNTS, KSP players routinely try to keep their crafts under (IF ANY) ? My interest in this grew out of another thread I made regrading what part counts were required for attaining most goals in KSP : (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55997-MAX-Parts-Required-to-Accomplish-Most-In-Game-Goals) Now I am wondering just how many parts the broader KSP community attempts to keep their craft under, regardless of the reason (or circumstance) for the restriction. Please bear in mind, the reason for restricting your part count is irrelevant as far as the POLL goes (although feel free to add it as a thread reply, especially if it is not performance related), it can be due to : (a) performance considerations ( design considerations © time constraints (d) personal preference (e) circumstance. (f) numerological importance .... or anything else What this POLL is designed to measure is the part counts (if any) you routinely attempt to keep your crafts below during design ? NOTE : We are talking about PART COUNTS on the Launchpad/Runway, NOT in orbit For example, if you routinely keep your crafts under 300 parts, but occasionally build into the 400's then 300 would be the answer you are looking for. Alternatively if you don't really have any hard and fast constraints but on reflection most crafts come in under 250 parts, then 250 is your answer. Feel free to add any caveats, or further information by replying to the thread. The REASON behind your constraint (if any) would be appreciated in this section. Thanks everyone for reading, and hopefully voting/responding. Hope to get enough responses to ensure a meaningful data set as I am quite curious as to the result.

Howdie All As a follow up to my original thread that pertained to part counts required for most gameplay experiences (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55997-MAX-Parts-Required-to-Accomplish-Most-In-Game-Goals). I was hoping someone who has played KSP on both LINUX and Windows 7 (ideally with the same machine) could give me an indication of how much of a performance increase there is on Linux? I am mainly interested in part count increase, so if you have any idea how many more parts you could use during launch by using LINUX (and 64-BIT UNITY) then using Windows 7, I would certainly appreciate you sharing your opinions/experiences; (Assuming the same FPS is maintained, and as the end result may not be linear with regard to FPS, please estimate for part counts ranging from say 150 - 250 where possible). Also does the 64-Bit UNITY supported by LINUX, make use of multiple cores, and if so does KSP (LINUX) make use of it ? (FYI : I am only interested in DUAL CORE ATM). Thankyou all for your time, and help.

Your part count has 4 significant figures ? Do you have any idea what your contributions do to the ego of soon to be newb ? Not even a newb, but a soon to be newb. And every time I see one of your contraptions I decide I need to save another few hundred dollars for my next system build. 4300 !$!##$ parts, my system has a greater chance of spontaneously developing sentience then being able to even render that monstrosity. Grumble, grumble, grumble, must build new machine over the new year, to play stupid game and not feel so inferior. I am jealous of each and every one of you. I want to be a Kerbal Wrangler too damnit ! (Hmm that's not a bad forum handle). BTW Why do little green men always smile when FRAPS is running ?

OK here are the results. Downloaded the 3-4 different ships listed by Vanamonde and they all went well. Frame rates around 30 ish range, which I think is fine for this type of game. So I tried a few larger part ships from the SPACEPORT. 428 Parts absolutely failed, only managed about 5 frames more then the 600 part craft from the performance thread managed. So I now know I can handle at least 180parts at a decent frame rate (ie min 30 for me), but 428 reduces the game to a paltry 9. I am trying to keep the frame rate above 20 so I guess I might eb able to handle about 300. Need to go back to the SPACEPORT and find a few testbunnies. BTW AS I am a complete newbie to this, and want to avoid reading to much about how everything works (in terms of things like orbital transfers etc) as I enjoy figuring it all out, I had a few issues with the function of the space bar I had initially set up all my engines to fire (from the downloaded craft) and clamps to disengage and then assumed that repeated pressing of the space bar just separated empty tanks. Well to my utter surprise I found that if you manage to FORGET to link a few engines (damn some of those test ships have a lot), then the next time you press space it will fire any that are not already going. So in LKO orbit I pressed the spacebar on one design as fuel was running very low, hopefully to make it gracefully separate and low and behold four "unknown" engines roared to life and then proceeded to separate from my craft, rather then BE separated from it (THE NERVE OF THE THING). My first response was COME BACK DESPERATELY NEEDED SENTIENT ENGINES, my second was HOW COME MY CAMERA IS STUCK TO THE CRAFT THAT IS NOW FALLING NOT FLYING. Well at least part of the ship made it into orbit Anyway still not sure whether to continue playing or wait a bit, will do a few more tests with part counts see what my max is (at least I can max out the graphics, changing my viewpoint doesn't make much difference to the framerate so I know my GPU's are doing their part). I get plenty of enjoyment just reading about the adventures you guys are having so that could keep me going for a while (with my spoiler reflexes at the ready of course ). Am toying with installing LINUX as that is supposedly meant to support a 64-BIT unity engine, and perhaps might support multicore ??? IDK Need to do more research. Thanks everybody, all very useful. Very grateful for all your help. I now have a reasonably good idea of what minimum part numbers are needed for probes and interplanetary explorers, and can use that info to determine if my system (as it currently stands) is enough to not impact my designs (and enjoyment) too much. OK got it. Sought of figured as much, but always best to ask those better informed than I. Thanks for that. Nice pics BTW.

Firstly thanks to all for the many helpful replies. You guys really do have a great community here. OK well I had deliberately not mentioned the specs as I had figured I would get told to not bother (felt a little guilty about that, but really wanted to try it myself). Graphically I have two GTX 280 SLI video cards that use an SLI profile I put together using NVidia Inspector. Graphically KSP seems to be a non-issue from the small amount of testing I have done. Although those two cards sound low (and are low), in SLI configuration with a decent profile they can run every dx9 or dx10 game I have played in the last 3-4 years at 1920*1080 and mostly max settings with a frame rate of above 40 at the lowest and usually enough for full vsync (ie 60+) : (So Civ V, Fallout 3/NV, XCOM, ME 1-2, Payday 1-2, Amnesia for example) CPU wise I only have a dual core, but it is unlocked. Its base clock rate is ~3ghz and it is running now at about 3.4-3.6 IIRC. Memory I have DDR3 about 6GB, but given KSP is still 32 bit, I guess that matters little. I am running Windows 7, and generally boot up in a very lean configuration for games (Ie minimum number of windows services, only absolutely necessary programs, no virus scanner etc). I also ensure KSP is running at ABOVE NORMAL priority just to make sure it gets its fair share of the CPU timeslices FYI Will download a 200 part ship forthwith and see if my framerate will survive , and thankyou for your help. (I suspect it will but am still a little nervous ) Hmmm OK will keep this in mind, perhaps allow for a little lower frame rate as my MINIMUM then, although from the extremely small amount I have played KSP I really do enjoy the launch , so time to add a 250 part and a 300 part test ships from the internet. Thankyou for this information, I do appreciate it. I will keep this in mind. I intend to take my time with the game and go for efficient designs, that said as a newbie I expect to make many and frequent mistakes. FTR I will be starting out in career mode, so this will likely help. Thanks for the suggestions. Yes I am aware of that, I was just after some base numbers that would cover most things, in other words 1-3 Kerbals not 15, a serviceable rover not multiple etc etc. I realise as different engines/parts unlock things get easier/harder in terms of part counts and do understand its a bit like asking the proverbial "how longs a piece of string", but that said I am sure there is a figure that would cover most scenarios in game. But thankyou for the insight anyway, and I do hope my response is not interpreted negatively as I did not mean it as such. OK well those numbers seem to be fine, sounds like automated missions will all be OK. Manned missions need much larger part counts it would seem. Thanks for the info. Thankyou very much for this. I will test them out. BTW what would you consider a LARGE cargo. Are you referring to tonnage or part count, and what sort of numbers are we talking. Thanks again everyone, very pleased with the responses and willingness of people to assist. You all will be rewarded with a completely inadequate ship design named after you, although to be fair I am more then reluctant to launch the SUNJUMPER Will let you all know how the part count goes performance wise. Sorry to the MODS for me putting my OP in the wrong forum. Thanks again.

Howdie All First full disclosure : I am a completely new player to KSP. I only joined the forums yesterday and for all intent and purposes this is my first real post. I was hoping that some of the KSP veterans (actually any non-newb will do ) would not mind answering a couple of questions I had regarding the game and performance. Essentially I would like to know if my computer has the capacity to handle the full KSP experience ? Now I have read the other threads about processors and performance for KSP, and have come away with the following : KSP is CPU limited (not surprising really), not threaded, supports only software PhysX and is most heavily influenced by part count. So what I would like to know is what sort of part counts are needed to accomplish "most" things within the game. For my own playstyle this would mean the following : 1. Being able to reach every planet/moon/sun in the game. 2. Being able to land and "take off" from every planet in the game. (Carrying/Deploying whatever scientific equipment/rover/etc is required) 3. Being able to build a space plane capable of reaching every planet in the game (and is atmosphere permits) fly and land on it. (NOTE REALLY A DEAL BREAKER, BUT WOULD BE NICE) 4. Be able to create a moderate space station around any planet/moon in the game. (Ie Refueling facility, small crew complement, escape vehicle, etc) 5. Be able to create a multi-part ship (assembled in space I assume) capable of reaching any planet in the system and carry landers/rovers etc. That's about it. (NOTE : I am talking about a MOD'less KSP experience here) BTW I obviously don't mean one ship that can do all of this but rather whatever of the above that would require the most parts, as the maximum. I also realise that people can build in huge amount of redundancy, mod parts, aesthetics etc, but I am only really interested in the MAX parts required for a reasonably well thought out design with a eye for keeping part count down (not manley-esque brilliance, but not tied up with tape by jeb either) that will accomplish these goals. I am not at this stage interested in creating "what if" scenarios, or building giant massive multi-purpose ships (it sounds like fun, but I am sure vanilla KSP has much to offer for a long time ! ). I just want to be able to experience the game without massive lag because I need 600 parts to get to some distant planet etc. Now I have loaded all of the stock ships and they all perform fine, but the max parts is only about 75 so its not a really impressive test. I also loaded the 600-700 part monster from the performance thread and this reduced performance to a crawl. Anyway I reckon if I can get an estimate that would accomplish goals 1-5 above, I can then just download a ship from somewhere that has roughly that number of parts and see how it performs. As far as I am aware, launch is the most CPU intensive time for the game, so I figure if it can launch at a half decent frame rate, then all else will be ok. Thanks everyone for reading, I really do hope someone will respond with an estimate so I can begin testing. Thanks again and happy KSPing. FYI If through testing I find my machine cannot handle it I will wait till early next year sometime when I will build my next machine, but as I am sure you can all appreciate I would rather play now . However given the choice of playing half the game now of the full game later, I will take the later. Sorry for the WALL OF TEXT.

To a large degree it is irrelevant if KSP (or any game really) supports SLI as you can force it to do so. Now I am not talking about just changing it to splitting the frame rendering between the GPU's through the NVidia Control Panel which will result in a marginal improvement, but rather creating an SLI profile for it using nVidiaInspector. I have to do this with almost every game I play as a single card of mine is not enough for most games at any decent graphic setting, and the official SLI profile usually follow months after the games release. Now as others have said KSP is more CPU limited then GPU, and your GPU usage is "probably" a sign of a lack of a frame limiter. However if you wish to try and see if any performance gains can be had, download the nVidiaInspector, create a new profile and HOOK it to the KSP executable. Then assign the SLI DX profiles (there are two depending on whether the game is using dx9 or dx10-11) to one of the many profile INSPECTOR allows. I generally use one of the CRYSIS profiles as they tend to make the greatest use of the GPU and consequently give the greatest improvement. Outside of nVidiaInspector you can use the second card for high level anti-aliasing calculations from within nVidiaControlPanel. DISLCAIMER : A dedicated SLI profile created by the game DEVS (if it exists) is "usually" better then one created using nVidiaInspector, although there are exceptions (XCOM being one). Also if they ever allow for HARDWARE PhysX you will be able to dedicate one card to doing that, which "should" give a large performance boost on many systems. Hope this helps.

Think about it. Imagine the title ended with an 'd , does that make it more easily deciphered ?