This game runs waay better for me (1080p, 70-100fps, very rarely dips to a little under 60, ultra settings, but with msaa at 4x instead of 8x, GTX 1070, 6700k, 16GB DDR3 2800mhz), but I've seen complaints all over the place with different configs.
I've got the specific game ready drivers for the game though, and had to change the power setting in the nvidia control center to max performance, and tweaked the threading optimization. Still need to change the task priority and see if that helps even more.
Biggest issue is right now my Ultimate Edition content(VIP, car pass, etc) isn't working on the PC version.
You guys fussing over a couple meters per second and mere tens of meters as if it's insanely dangerous is both frustrating and hilarious at the same time.
Is it just me or is Austin way over thinking how to descend to Kerbin?
They overthink everything.
To be fair, his "overthinking" had him naturally intuit aerobreaking (which was really awesome seeing that happen, and funny seeing how unsure they were of the notion). They literally discovered what they needed to do (well, a very efficient way to do what they wanted) completely just by thinking it out.
The only real problem is they were too hesitant and scared (and obviously inexperienced) to go in with an even lower periapsis, so it took them forever to descend (perhaps thats what the over thinking was referring to, but when you really have no experience with exactly how much heat is generated from aerobreaking at different heights, what else are you going to do but be cautious)
@yellownumber5: they have planet shine installed (you can see it in the toolbar), plus I'm fairly certain it wouldn't really do anything on the dark side of the moon. There's no light to reflect off of it. That's why it's dark. It's more helpful for the shadows on your ships that are in sunlight, but obviously half of that will be shadowed, and those shadowed parts will have light reflected from the planet (if enough light is shining on that part of the planet).
But both of those mods are awesome, and do make the game look cooler and more cinematic, just in general.
...Along those lines, the timer next to the nav ball already has the time to burn there, why do the "test burn"? That does change velocity and changes your maneuver from it's intended trajectory...
In my experience, sometimes that number shows the incorrect burn time. I'm assuming it's just a bug of some sort, might have to do with staging, potentially with the throttle at something other than full when doing so, IDK, but it happens. Kerbal Engineer Redux (which they have installed) does list a node burn time that seems to be correct even when that number beside the navball is off.
Plus they know that timer is there for that (that's where they look when they do the test burn), so I can only reasonably assume vinny has seen that number be wrong before, and has learnt that doing a quick burn will correct it.
The only reason I don't do test burns every time is that at this point I've played long enough to know when the number is off, and without mods do a test burn (as close to the node as I can so it doesn't screw it up much, and as quickly as I can), or just look at KER.
Watching Vinny do a relatively good ascent is soooo satisfying after watching weeks of them slowly learning (or... sometimes the opposite of learning).
I think watching every moment of them struggling through most of it(with them slowly taking in hints thanks to the delay) made it way more satisfying than it otherwise would be.
Gravity turn at 8k, no lower than that, the atmosphere is too dense lower.
This is completely false (at least since they changed the aero in 1.0, it used to be true when the drag model was very... well... bad, and the atmosphere was a little thicker). And to be honest it's not really much of a gravity turn if you wait that long to turn. This video explains the ideal launch profile. That video even shows what you may need to do if you are turning too fast. The idea of starting at (50 - )100m/s (with a very small 10 degree turn) that Vinny said is correct. His big problem is he's for one being far too aggressive on the gravity turn (getting too far off of prograde), and also trying to completely let go of the controls when his gravity turn isn't quite good enough to do so.
They really need to be more gentle and slow with that turn (might want to turn on precision controls with the caps lock button, you'll know it's on when the control indicators in the bottom left turn from orange to blue). Also, while with an ideally built rocket, with just the right amount of TWR, and aero dynamic stability you can do the 10 degree turn and then let go of the controls, chances are you won't have much luck with that (unless you are very experienced, and have a really good rocket design). I'm almost always either doing some amount of gentle manual guidance, or I turn the autopilot on to point at prograde (still with some adjustment, because some times because of the design of the rocket, or maybe your initial turn not being perfect you might need to slow, or speed up the turn). Getting a good gravity turn isn't always the easiest thing though, so I'm not that surprised they're having issues (especially with the ships they've designed).
@baddudes: since the aero changes in 1.0, that's been made quite inefficient. You want to turn much earlier now. You should turn 5-10 degrees while you're going around 100m/s, and then ideally turn off SAS and let it naturally do a gravity turn (with minor adjustments if needed to make sure you are not too steep or shallow). As generally guide points for that turn I try to make sure that at around 10k or so I'm at 45 degrees, and by the time I'm at 30-40k I'm going fully horizontal. You should pretty much be gradually be turning (almost) the whole way up. This can change slightly depending on how heavy the ship is, but that's roughly the ideal ascent if you have an efficient amount of TWR on your launch stage
blendermf's comments