Search the Community

i was looking at the pinouts for my gpu connectors and i noticed that the only difference between a 6-pin and an 8-pin, is the 8-pin has 2 extra grounds. i think the rule of thumb is 120 watts per 18 gauge wire pair. but im wondering what the advantage is for having an extra pair of grounds. whatever advantage the 12vhpwr gives you, it omits the extra grounds found on dual 8s, and you might as well run dual 6s. frankly im glad amd did not re-invent the wheel on this one and used 8-pins. i think id have done a mini-16, and the i2c lines in the housing instead of having this stupid overengineered (and therefore expensive) composite connector. id rather they just put a power limit slider in the gpu drivers so i can tell it what the power budget is without it needing to talk to the psu. and to think while they were specifying a stupid new connector to replace something that was already ok, they would have specified new structural members in the gpu mounting hardware to support ever growing render bricks.

I didn't touch the textures, only brought the scatterer configs up to date so that they work with the latest version (which I am not sure wouldn't infringe the license). @Poodmundwould be more suited to talk about the licensing of his work though. If you want to improve on the scatterer configs, it is fine by me.

Not really a claim. Just an observation. I haven't seen much engagement the past few days. Not many new threads opened. Which was why I opened one that you were not a fan of . The idea was to get people talking and lighten things up a bit. Most threads are gloom and doom now (with good reason), so some humor or positivity might stimulate more conversation. Preferably of the good-natured variety. And I actually agree about the silent approach for the staff, I think it's their best bet right now. They're better off to wait for a significant improvement, then come out and say "hey guys, sorry, we were hard at work, couldn't talk, but look at what we've done!". If it really was an improvement, they'd be forgiven instantly. Exactly right. That's what I mean about people losing interest and moving on. They also might be casting an eye toward the future for Harvester's new game. Looks like an atmospheric KSP. Gonna scratch a lot of nostalgia itches for people.

The challenge mostly, ie. the fun of beating a semi-realistic situation in different ways to see which one works the best. (replay value) There are millions of dollars a year spent on games that rely on timing as a factor and KSP can't talk multi-player without people point out how fun a space race would be.

There's been an elephant in the room (or forum) for several weeks now, and it can no longer be ignored. I realize this is a hot button topic, so no one wants to touch it, but it's time we got it out in the open. There's been a lot of talk around here about when KSP2 1.0 will be released. There's even an entire hype-train thread dedicated to it. This is a ridiculous question. Anyone with a rational mind knows that the name of the official release is going to be KSP 2.0. Anything else would not make sense. I'm sure you agree. And to those who would ask "if the official release is called KSP2.0, what should this current version be called?", I would say... please don't complicate things (KSP2-.9? ). We need to settle the issue once and for all before it tears this community apart. So, please vote on this most important issue and let your voice be heard. Especially if you agree with me. Thank you.

I might hold off on Kerbalow and Deep Space Surface Habitat since they’re the kind of thing that might stock once the colony system gets added. Edit: Or maybe do it now and try to talk them into incorporating you code?

I think interviewers with millions of subscribers are professionals in their class and it's best to talk to them. But they can and even should ask uncomfortable questions, which Nate avoids.

With an controller you can vary the walk speed, not so much on PC. Now you might be faster than standard because of speed buffs but the npc should keep up with you. Only expectation is if they also has to talk and they need to finish this before something happens.

Nate is not going to talk to anyone. All the sharp questions that he was asked, he ignored. After the release of the game, he wrote that he likes to sit in a thread where players are looking for something to praise KSP2 for. Nate isn't going to apologize for anything. Apparently T2 is not going to fire him, so he has nothing to worry about. No, I have the look and feel of the game and video footage with numerous developer promises.

Excellent. I hope k2-d2 will fit your precision need. It would be an excellent thing to integrate my tool into maneuver node contrôler. I'll contact the author to talk about it.

If you read that open letter, a lot of modders don't want to jump into this mess for a while either. 100% agreed. Given how much they talk about connections to the science community, I would have loved to see a more genuine science system, with a gamified spin. Even if they were just stealing ideas from Kerbalism.

Sorry, this jumped out to me as being surprisingly hilarious. I was reading through this dumpster fire and reached your comment - most of the stuff you said just uses different starting assumptions and places different importance on different pieces of information but I can get behind the logic (while disagreeing with most of them), but this one... an acrobatic masterpiece. Okay, an example: Object A has trait B. Type of object C has trait B. (implication...). This doesn't logically imply that the object is in that type - I have eyes. Yeah, flamingoes have eyes. The thing that makes this really funny is that you can in fact talk about things that don't exist - you can find lots of examples of very specific statements about multiplayer that aren't true. The devs could just lie - I'm reasonably certain you are aware of that fact. So, reading backwards, coming across this statement right after reading this is hilarious. Wait... They can talk about it. Yeah, you can talk about things that don't exist. (implication: They don't have multiplayer). One thing that your statement serves for is to rule out its own category; that is logically consistent. For example, if I say that I can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist and then I go on to demonstrate it, then I can't be in the category of non-existence: if p then q -> !q = !p (this doesn't work the other way btw). So, assuming that that Patch 1 was communicated truthfully (which could always be an incorrect assumption), this statement: doesn't work: You can't talk about (I'd say demonstrate) things that don't exist, the devs have talked about (and more importantly demonstrated) their QA through Patch 1, ergo the QA does not not exist. As I said at the start, I respect your opinions and logic, even the QA statement. You noticed I made different assumptions to start with (that the Patch 1 communications are true, at least the relevant part), and perhaps interpreted information differently (that the bug fixes in Patch 1 are an adequate demonstration of bugs that have been fixed without outside input), leading me to a different conclusion. However, changing those factors, I could come to your conclusion logically. I don't want this to be a serious insult, just a jab at something I found funny. Everyone slips up, I caught two obvious logical fallacies in this message (and there's probably still more if you want to find them), but this was a slip with a wonderful flourish.

Here: Life support confirmed not a thing. From what it looks like right now, we all know as much about multiplayer as the devs let on: "it'll be this or that but we can't talk". The fact they don't even have a proper blueprint they can share yet, compared to (for example) how much they talk about colonies and science, is pretty much all you need to know. Multiplayer at the moment is probably not more than a talking point in meetings with shareholders or T2. We're talking rockets. We're only making rockets as a stack of parts because that's literally how the game lets us do it. Punishing the player with unrealistic mechanics because of a building method they have no agency over is not correct. Neither does wobble correctly abstract real-life structural issues with rockets. Also, the stack of books and alphabets blocks are not supposed to compose a single structure, or joined by a joint system. What I said is the release didn't even have a hint of being QA'd, so anyone would have a problem believing their statement was real. Ah yes, we both take it into consideration in our day to day interstellar trips. Considering there'll be no FTL, their interstellar scale is exceedingly small, meaning realistic stellar motion is irrelevant, intangible. Of course, they could probably make stars move laughingly fast, as that's the only possibility to justify bothering with stellar motion: Everything being extremely small, and extremely close. Procedural radiators and solar panels are a good start, procedural wings was quite a leap in the right direction. All I ask is they give the same treatment to tanks, to solve both wobble and most shape limitations. Yes, and from what they've talked about, I speculate they're just being roundabout about copying KSP1's career, minus funds. However, you are the first person I see that isn't expecting career to evolve in KSP2. I'm only going off about what Nate answered here. When asked about colonies, he mentioned a new VAB-like building with an interface to build stuff off of, that answer leaves off a lot of important bits, which is where my questioning comes in.

Trade Routes: Apart from in-situ construction, one of the other answers removes all uses for this feature and colonies. Since there's no life support, there's no need for colonies other than a small local launchpad. I'm guessing (from yet another answer) that you'll need to ship X material to Y colony to be able to fabricate Z part. Absolutely, mind-numbingly boring. It's an unappealing logistics layer that completely misses all points of real space colonization, and almost all challenges of it as well (heavily dependent on how shipping logistics end up being handled). Do I need to just plop some parts down and establish a magic route, or will I be challenged to design my own logistics ships on further implementations? Multiplayer: Schrodinger's feature. One answer says it is not synchronized, another says it can be both, and a lot of speculation which is not really far from what I've been reading on these forums for years. Also, they can't talk about it. Yeah, you can't talk about things that don't exist. Wobbly Rockets: Hot garbage take. Wobble is not realistic, not fun, and is only a feature of Unity's incredibly crap default joint system made for prototypes and indies. Playing the game as dev / QA: Nobody would believe that. The results of that are visible. Moving solar systems: Dumb. Even on chemical-rocket scale interstellar travel (centuries to millennia from one star to another), systems would move so little, even the ones furthest away from the center, that modelling such a thing as a half-way is a waste of resources. Either do it right or don't, the middle ground doesn't work either way. Procedural parts: If you really want to leave wobbliness to rocket stacks, then you know you yourself are forcing players into wobbly rockets by limiting their part choices. Make everything procedural so we can avoid wobble. Science/Career: "There will be a system that rewards you for doing missions", "Gather science points, redeem them for parts". So, the only real change is tuning the planetary modifier for KSC? The rest is just a KSP1 ripoff? god. Colony building: So, I have this space rocket game, but buildings are built magically off an interface and not shipping + docking? BRUH. IVAs: The fact you're not culling high res meshes from outside to not waste performance is pretty yikes. Also, those models are unoptimized, as much excuses as you want to throw at people. Robotics/Propellers/Rotors/Hinges Post 1.0: I thought one of the goals of KSP2 was to start off with a better foundation and a more complete game. This answer only tells me that KSP1 will be a much better product for about a decade. Thanks to the community for wasting like half the questions on irrelevant stuff.

You might be referring to this interview with ShadowZone where they talk about "high part count" and specifically make mention of ShadowZone regularly making 1000+ part assemblies in KSP. (Time Stamp @ 5:27)

0/10: Only robots have 37k+ rep and talk about the weather! As for me, I'm a moderator

Given the publisher constraints that Nate almost certainly contractually can't talk about, the release has honestly gone fairly well. And remember, they're seeing the day-to-day bug fixes and improvements that we don't get to, along with the feature dev that's being done in parallel.

If the game can't handle 1000-parts craft, then what kind of colonies with automatic supply routes can we talk about?

Even if that's the case, that not every part is physically stimulated... Didn't they want colony buildings to have physical stimulation not unlike how parts are stimulated? RE: the end of that first trailer where the whole colony starts falling all over itself. I know that wasn't a gameplay trailer but I feel like I remember there being talk about how that's what they wanted. I'd be quite surprised if that's how things actually turned out at this point, it seems more likely to me buildings and maybe also orbital assets might be static to some degree.

Anyway, staying on topic: Hearing 2nd hand from people who went to the talk, I hear that the talk consisted of KSP1 PQS and more expensive textures and shaders. Nothing really that you'd call 'PQS+'. (Yet again, Nate was overselling/overhyping) And apparently at least the group that went to GDC doesn't seem to be talking about giving up PQS, just a brief reference to something that might be CBT. And of course they didn't fess up to how god-awful the performance is. So overall maybe the mostly-artists that gave the panel don't know what Mortoc is working on, or CBT is considered to be a long shot they're not banking on.

While the terrain is definitely a big step down in terms of performance, I think its undeniable that the terrain system is a big step up look wise from KSP1 (If you want to see it from orbit look at duna, if you want to see what the terrain system can do look at the geography of Pol). Im guessing the talk will go basically "We started with PQS because ksp1 did it and it was easy, heres all the little knick knacks we've added to PQS, here's when we ultimately realized that we couldnt get PQS as performant as we'd like with the graphics we like, here's what we're doing with CBT".

It has been a pleasure, an honor, a privilege, and a lot of other things to follow this story over... gosh, it's been how many years? I couldn't have asked for a better ending: all the insane technology and high concept (higher concept? high2 concept?) sci-fi worldbuilding, all the fantastic character work and messages of hope and healing, the payoffs to countless setups, just... I don't have the words that this story deserves, but I'm very grateful for it. I could talk endlessly about lines I loved and pieces of storytelling that resonated with me and characters and themes and incredible concepts, but I'll just sum it up by saying that Voyage: The Final Warning will go down as one of the most amazing, insane, wacky, and wonderful things I've read, and I've read a lot of amazing, insane, wacky, and/or wonderful things. Thank you very, very much, for all of it.

The initial pitchover is slightly different from rocket to rocket, depending on its starting TWR and engine selection. Usually, whenever I build something completely new, I do a few test launches and reverts to figure out how it best likes to fly, although experience lets me make educated guesses on where to start. Let me give you a sample rocket for which I know precisely when to pitch how much, so it's easier to replicate and we both talk about the same thing when questions arise. Place the downloaded file at: C:\Users\Your_User_Profile_Here\AppData\LocalLow\Intercept Games\Kerbal Space Program 2\Saves\SinglePlayer\Your_Savegame_Name_Here\Workspaces Then, next time you load this savegame, you should see a new workspace available for loading in the VAB. It might not have a thumbnail, because that might only generate once you have it loaded at least once, I don't know for sure. The rocket was something I designed on a whim to figure out how I could do a crewed Minmus landing and return with the lowest possible mass. Not sure this is the actual lowest possible, but I was fairly pleased with how this one performed. It has a launchpad TWR of 1.265, and additionally, an engine with a fairly small margin between sea level Isp and vacuum Isp. So it only barely has suitable thrust, and doesn't gain much additional thrust as it raises through the atmosphere. Both factors mean that this rocket prefers a somewhat more conservative turn, something like 12km at 45° pitch. Upon launching, wait until your speed is around 60 m/s. Then, using the D key, pitch over five degrees. That's half of the smallest circle on the navball, very gentle. Toggle SAS Hold Prograde, take your hands off the controls, and watch. The next time you should need to touch anything is during stage separation and second stage ignition (spacebar twice). Then, wait and watch some more. As your apoapsis altitude goes past 55km-ish, you can start throttling down. This delays the point at which your apoapsis climbs to its target altitude, and stops the time-to-apoapsis from running away from you; so you burn for longer and closer to apoapsis, which lifts your periapsis more and reduces the final orbit insertion dV. Feel free to go down to something like 20%, so long as your apoapsis altitude still keeps rising reasonably. You do want it to exit the atmosphere before too long, after all. Eventually, your apoapsis will be where you want it (I usually target 80km), so cut the engine and coast. Once time to apoapsis is down to like 15 to 12 seconds, slowly throttle up again. Dragging the throttle with the mouse gives great precision control. You want to find the point at which time to apoapsis stops decreasing, then throttle back again. Slowly let it creep closer to 0 as you watch your periapsis rise up, using throttle control to keep the apoapsis just in front of you until you have a nice circular orbit. And then - congratulations, you flew to orbit with only spacebar and throttle control, plus a single touch of the WASD keys! If you want, you can try and see if you can do the Minmus landing and return. Since you launched into an equatorial orbit with the exercise, you'll want to intercept Minmus at AN/DN and may need to timewarp for Minmus to be in the proper position. There's not enough dV margin for a 6° plane change in low Kerbin orbit.

That is a kind offer! I'm going to take what you wrote above and go play with it. I'm one of those guys who really don't start learning until I get my hands on stuff - so it's actually better for me to make mistakes and learn from them than to watch someone who really knows what they are doing. It's like when I was learning carpentry - I had this guy who was an amazing woodworker who could spend an hour telling me what right looks like - but until I got my hands on the piece and tools I couldn't feel what right was. While this involves some waste - I learn faster through failure than by striving for perfection! Yeah - I need to do the math rather than guesstimate! This is a Yaaarg moment. Can't tell you how often I've been frustrated by the SRBs and not known what was going on. Never realized it was this sensitive. I just plop them into what looks like alignment. Will also play around with this to figure best practices! So I've flown a variation of this profile ever since I learned about gravity turns. Never knew that what I was doing wasn't a gravity turn! So yeah I kind of do enjoy it b/c I'm generally on the edge of flipping the rocket (success often requires failure and revert) Okay - so talk me through this? . Let's say I built a sane rocket... What does that single pitch over look like?

Sorry to hear this, I hope you're okay Bullying it one thing, but this is abuse. Is there anyone you can talk to, for help?