Time to LKO? Real time.

[[insert_name_here]]

4 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

...I wish I had a gaming computer.

I feel your pain. Like I said previously, I play KSP and other games on an 4 year old Toshiba laptop with an i5 processor. Now this is actually my OLD laptop - I could use my Surface Pro 4 which was meant to be an "upgrade" from my previous laptop but it has a worse processor (Intel Core m3, 1.51GHz). I've also started to experience super funky graphics problems that prevent me playing any games on it that are more demanding than Undertale (I used to be able to play other games, they just had bad FPS). Note to self: make sure your parents don't buy your laptop for you next time. The Surface Pro 4 isn't really a bad laptop, it's just the bad CPU and graphics that make it bad. At least I can use it for homework/procrastination, while I play games on the other laptop.

[DrLicor]

On 14-10-2017 at 7:02 PM, regex said:

I've always had more than 4fps in RO unless I'm launching some 500 part monstrosity, and those are pretty rare because I can easily reduce part count with procedural tanks. You need an i5 or i7 (or whatever the AMD equivalent is, but I'm no AMD peasant) and at least 8GB of RAM.

Indeed, A decent i5/i7 can run RO pretty good. At least 8gb of RAM to load everything smoothly and releasing the pressure of the GPU/CPU whne you've installed a lot of textures. I've put 8gb RAM extra (from 8 to 16gb) into my laptop recently and have noticed better performance.

But back to the topic. Launching a rocket under the 100 parts, can make in to LEO within 10minutes real time. However, when launching a complicated one with a lot of parts, the launch will take significantly more time. 
Back to the real real topic, haven't launched any rocket in stock solar system for ages now, But I'm sure that it won't take 10 minutes.

[Ty Tan Tu]

On 10/14/2017 at 1:18 PM, 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 think what he is referring to here is the fact that Intel has no less than 14 different I5-7000 series CPUs. The high end server version has totally different specs than does their lowest end low wattage laptop I5-7000. You can't just say you are using an I5 and have it convey any real meaning. With that being said, I am an CPU agnostic. 

There is something I am missing in this thread. Even with my modest AMD A8-8600 Radeon R6 with 8 GB of RAM, I am not dropping graphic or physics frames. Are we talking about how efficient we have become in getting into orbit? With a ship like that, even as circumspect as I am,  I could get into orbit in less than 10 minutes. With bigger ships I do run in to problems with doing gravity turns, and I DO have to launch straight up at times, and circularize my orbit at APO. When I launch a fuel tanker rover, my orbit can be WAY off the equatorial, but I am glad I just got the darn thing in orbit - and I will worry about aligning planes later. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Ty Tan Tu

[Superfluous J]

I'm usually in LM(un)O by the time 10 whole minutes has gone by.

[Red Shirt]

Just updated to KSP 1.3.1 from 1.2.2. Currently no mods. Did not move camera. 6:00 to completed circularization. I believe it was green all the way. Previously heavily modded install was 9:55. Big difference. I still intend to slowly mod the crap out of the game.

[linuxgurugamer]

On 10/14/2017 at 1:06 AM, invision said:

using rocket from save file 3:48s from launch to orbit

He did say build.

[Xavven]

Desktops can be a bit more cost efficient for gaming compared to laptops. I usually go through a cycle of buying practically a whole new computer, then 3 years later just upgrade the graphics card, then 3 years after that buy all new again. That cycle has leveled off as of late, though -- the biggest breakthroughs in speed in the last 4 or 5 years has been the solid state drive. KSP isn't a very hardware intensive game by today's standards. I would imagine that those having framerate/simulation-speed issues are not on a computer considered to be "gaming grade" by even 5-years-old standards...

[Archgeek]

On 10/22/2017 at 8:37 AM, Xavven said:

KSP isn't a very hardware intensive game by today's standards. I would imagine that those having framerate/simulation-speed issues are not on a computer considered to be "gaming grade" by even 5-years-old standards...

You'd be surprised.  KSP's still mostly single-core (per craft for the main physics thread) so ships with high or even moderate part count might run noticably better on an old 3.x GHz system than on a modern 1.8 GHz octocore, simply because the tightest bottleneck that likes to present itself remains the thrust, drag, and torque-loaded collision simulation of a few hundred solid meshes flying in tight formation (with extra forces keeping them drifting off, and limits on those forces where they'll tear off anyway), which has such interdependency (net force on one part depends in part on the net force of its neighbors) that it pretty much can't be parallelized (outside of giving seperate craft in the same scene their own threads).

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

My potatop runs at 1:1 until about 80 parts.