Time to LKO? Real time.

[klgraham1013]

55 minutes ago, regex said:

You need an i5 or i7 (or whatever the AMD equivalent is, but I'm no AMD peasant)

So, which, i5 or i7?  As an AMD peasant, I'm easily confused by Intel's refusal to use a different naming scheme after 6 generations.

Has actually used both brands extensively.

[Geonovast]

1 hour ago, regex said:

You need an i5 or i7

I poo-poo your i5 or i7 https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA1K666R3654

[NSEP]

3 hours ago, 322997am said:

NASA levels 8gb? No offense but the average midrange gaming pc has 16

NASA does not play videogames.

Laptops in the ISS still use Windows XP, or atleast untill recently. There is absolutely no need for fancy nancy speedy things in superadvanced, superserious laboratories in superextraordinary places. 

[Moh1336]

Didn't the ISS switch exclusively to linux back in 2013?

[NSEP]

35 minutes ago, Moh1336 said:

Didn't the ISS switch exclusively to linux back in 2013?

I don't know actually. I think i heard it somewhere but ignored it.

[ZooNamedGames]

Nice to know I'm literally the only one with takes 20 minutes or more to orbit.

RIP my AMD A4-5000 (1.4GHz Quad Core) APU with 4GB of RAM. 

I just stare at a i7-6700 core, 16GB of RAM laptop (I'm going to be too mobile for a desktop to be feasible) wishing I could feel what 1:1 gameplay with graphical mods enabled would be like. But alas... I cannot. I weep for eternity.

Edited October 14, 2017 by ZooNamedGames

[regex]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

So, which, i5 or i7?

When someone says "or" that means "either". I've played RO with 8K textures on both using Intel and Nvidia GPUs, the GPU makes no real difference if you know how to work around it. I've gotten good framerates with both, and both were laptops.

[Hay]

Atm I'm playing on a modded 2.5x install and it took me 4 minutes to launch a 37 part vessel to a 106x108km orbit, no lag here. i7 6700K at 4.65 Ghz, 16GB ram and a R9 290X, playing at 4k. 

3 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

So, which, i5 or i7?  As an AMD peasant, I'm easily confused by Intel's refusal to use a different naming scheme after 6 generations.

Has actually used both brands extensively.

Doesn't matter. Both should perform great when playing KSP. I bet you can even play it smoothly on one of the new quad core Coffee Lake i3's.

[Atkara]

Now, I've stopped using graphics mods back when my main machine was still fine and my "designs" don't go beyond the 220-250 parts area.

Although the backup machine I have to use for the time being, consists of a [email protected], 4GB RAM and an old GeForce 8800GTX, the only thing I can think of that could take 10 minutes to reach LKO, are the spaceplanes I use to get fuel into orbit. But that's 8 Rapiers, pushing a 50ton payload, which requires a very smooth flight profile, in order to get up there.

A 10 minute rocket launch though? No, I don't think so.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, regex said:

When someone says "or" that means "either". I've played RO with 8K textures on both using Intel and Nvidia GPUs, the GPU makes no real difference if you know how to work around it. I've gotten good framerates with both, and both were laptops.

I see my miss use of commas may have caused a great confusion.  I was commenting on Intel using the same name for 6 generations.  Saying "[Person A] has an i5" tells me nothing.

Actually just switched from a crappy, old i7 to a spiffy, new Ryzen. 

31 minutes ago, Hay said:

Doesn't matter. Both should perform great when playing KSP. I bet you can even play it smoothly on one of the new quad core Coffee Lake i3's.

See above.

Edited October 14, 2017 by klgraham1013

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Nice to know I'm literally the only one with takes 20 minutes or more to orbit.

RIP my AMD A4-5000 (1.4GHz Quad Core) APU with 4GB of RAM. 

I just stare at a i7-6700 core, 16GB of RAM laptop (I'm going to be too mobile for a desktop to be feasible) wishing I could feel what 1:1 gameplay with graphical mods enabled would be like. But alas... I cannot. I weep for eternity.

I've always preferred PC games to console games, and so for years I've played on sorry machines that could barely handle games that were 8 years old. Even then, most games would give me the dreaded "graphics settings turned down...blah blah blah". Some wouldn't play at all, saying "upgrade your graphics card". Yeah, sure guys. No problem.

So finally, I decided I had had enough. I saved for months, did my homework, and jumped out the window with an insanely expensive MSI gaming laptop. I figured buyers remorse would set in immediately, and I'd wish I'd never done something so crazy. Instead, a year and a half later, it's still a monster, and I consider it one of the best purchases I've ever made. Not everyone will have the means, obviously, but for anyone who has a steady job, I would recommend saving up to buy something great that you'll really enjoy, instead of getting by with substandard machines that just leave you frustrated. Pretty girls take all your money, but they're worth it. 

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

I've always preferred PC games to console games, and so for years I've played on sorry machines that could barely handle games that were 8 years old. Even then, most games would give me the dreaded "graphics settings turned down...blah blah blah". Some wouldn't play at all, saying "upgrade your graphics card". Yeah, sure guys. No problem.

So finally, I decided I had had enough. I saved for months, did my homework, and jumped out the window with an insanely expensive MSI gaming laptop. I figured buyers remorse would set in immediately, and I'd wish I'd never done something so crazy. Instead, a year and a half later, it's still a monster, and I consider it one of the best purchases I've ever made. Not everyone will have the means, obviously, but for anyone who has a steady job, I would recommend saving up to buy something great that you'll really enjoy, instead of getting by with substandard machines that just leave you frustrated. Pretty girls take all your money, but they're worth it. 

Once I get a job, it is on the top of my priority lists. Just have to finish school first.

[Human Person]

On 14.10.2017 at 4:41 AM, regex said:

10 minutes to LKO? Most of my RO rockets make LEO in less time...

I usually aim for 8-10 Minutes in RSS. You can even go as low as 5 Minutes.

[[insert_name_here]]

On ‎14‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 12:23 PM, Laie said:

Playing on a 4-yr old i5, lag from part count usually is a non-issue below 100parts (green clock all the way), and depending on a few other factors, I usually don't feel any lag until I get to about 150-200 parts.

Time to orbit is mostly a question of dV. The most "efficient" ascent basically has me circularize at 30-40km, then raise the AP on the far side out of the atmosphere. Coasting there takes a lot of real time even at 4x warp.

Yep, I also have an approximately 4-year-old i5 laptop and I've got basically the same framerate - pretty much green clock up to 100 parts and mild lag from 100-150(which goes away as long as I play KSP while my laptop is charging), but it depends on other factors as well. How long to circularise an orbit? I'd probably go with 10 minutes. Getting to orbit doesn't take that long, and I would say you need tons of mods and/or a pretty bad computer to experience lag at 30 parts, or at least lag at 30 parts that is severe enough to make getting to orbit a few minutes longer than it should.

[HerrCrazi]

I usually have a 2.5/1 ratio, meaning that 2.5s in the real life is equal to 1s ingame, without timewrap or anything. However I can launch a well-done 30 parts rocket in LKO in a little bit more than 10 real minutes, using timewrap if needed to circularize.

But if the rocket is more than 150 parts, I fall to about one frame per each 5 real seconds

[MR L A]

On 14/10/2017 at 2:23 AM, Laie said:

Time to orbit is mostly a question of dV. The most "efficient" ascent basically has me circularize at 30-40km, then raise the AP on the far side out of the atmosphere.

Doesn't sound like a particularly efficient ascent at all. Best ascents keep AP constantly about 45 seconds away and going through the atmosphere for that amount of time, even if it is thin at that stage, is costly.

Here's a great thread on the topic - 

 

20 hours ago, 322997am said:

NASA levels 8gb? No offense but the average midrange gaming pc has 16

Wrong. The average gaming PC (average also placing it as midrange) still has 8gb. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

[Moh1336]

So I just ran a quick test, a basic rocket with 51 parts (I may have gone overboard with the solar panels, batteries, and comms). This was an unmanned flight.

Apo 131k and Peri 80k

Kerbal time reported a mission of 3m45s, Real time was 3m51s

 

If you want to share a specific rocket with a specific Ap/Peri I'd be happy to run the test again.

[AVaughan]

If you are getting poor fps with a 30 part rocket, then I'd suggest turning down the graphics settings/removing graphics mods.  If that helps, then your fps was probably limited by your graphics card.  (And laptops often have either no graphics card or an underclocked and undervolted graphics card to save power).  Personally my seven year old i7 can easily launch a 30part rocket with the clock staying in the green, provided I drop the defaults graphics settings down one notch, and don't use things like scatterer/visual enhancements.

[322997am]

1 hour ago, MR L A said:

Doesn't sound like a particularly efficient ascent at all. Best ascents keep AP constantly about 45 seconds away and going through the atmosphere for that amount of time, even if it is thin at that stage, is costly.

Here's a great thread on the topic - 

 

Wrong. The average gaming PC (average also placing it as midrange) still has 8gb. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Sorry, I made a mistake there. I meant that the average gaming DESKTOP has 16gb(considering ram is cheap and most PCs have enough slots for 16). The skewed results on there are probably the result of casual gaming on laptops, which I’d say I see more often than casual desktop gaming.

[regex]

2 hours ago, 322997am said:

Sorry, I made a mistake there. I meant that the average gaming DESKTOP has 16gb(considering ram is cheap and most PCs have enough slots for 16). The skewed results on there are probably the result of casual gaming on laptops, which I’d say I see more often than casual desktop gaming.

Those filthy casuals, skewing averages on a widespread distribution platform...

[Red Shirt]

I have a laptop with an AMD10 something... 2.50 GHz, 8 GB Ram, integrated graphics. I modded until it broke then backed off (just a little). Running EVE, SVE, Scatterer, and a bunch of other stuff. Set to max resolution and highest graphic settings, except clouds are low resolution (I think, I couldn't tell a difference).

I used a 29 part stock craft. To circularization = 9:55 real time without altering camera view at launch.

Same craft looking up at sky after launch = 7:50 real time. 

So its slow. I could leave off the graphic mods and go much faster but why? Its inspiring to look at the way I set it up. The clock usually turns green once I'm away from Kerbin.

[AVaughan]

I won't even attempt to run EVE, SVE or scatter, because they bog down the game's performance too much (on my 7 year old hardware).  If you want decent performance on older hardware, then ditch the graphics mods.  Alternatively you can have low performance, with a much prettier game.  Ultimately pick the tradeoff you prefer.

[GarrisonChisholm]

My circularization took ~25 minutes.  If I am launching Mun rocket w/ 4 person capsule that takes over an hour.  I guess I am a patient soul (who desperately needs a new PC).

[bobcook]

4:22 for a 30 part stock rocket to 85km orbit with my MacBook Pro from 2013, 2.7 GHz Intel Core i7. Hardly breaks a sweat with stock. Mods probably affect this quite a bit. I've never tried any of the visual mods e.g. Scatterer but would appreciate hearing the experience of others with this same h/w.

[Ultimate Steve]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 12:37 AM, Geonovast said:

I started playing on a ~5 year old laptop with crappy graphics and a 1.7 ghz i5.  I didn't know what a green clock was on that.  I might as well uninstall KSP from that thing, because I would probably punch it from the process speed and playing stock.

I have played on 3 main computers since I started playing KSP. I have affectionately named them "The Brick," "The Potato," and "ULTRA MEGA FAST LUDICROUS SPEEEEEEEEEEEEED!" AKA George.

Here is an inspiron 6000 series, the same model as The Brick:

1.5 gigahertz. A Pentium M processor. Released in 2005. 120GB hard drive. Heavy. Eight or so USB ports.

And 1GB RAM. Good gravy, how did I even manage to run KSP on this?

Yellow clock? What's a yellow clock? It's supposed to be red, right?

I only ever ran 0.19 on it - and it was torture. A small suborbital flight could take 15 minutes... No wonder I got nothing done.

 

Eventually I moved on to THE POTATO!

I forget exactly what this one is called (Miracle I found a picture, actually) but I think it had 4GB of RAM and an i5 processor. It ran KSP better, but not well. I managed half-decent space stations with this.

And now, for George. It's actually terrible for gaming, but because I'm used to even worse it feels insanely fast.

BAM! 2.4 Gigahertz! 8 gigabytes of RAM! Nearly a terabyte of hard drive space! YEAH!

...I wish I had a gaming computer.