Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 17, 2017, 10:36:06 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  PC/Console Gaming  |  Topic: Kerbal Space Program! 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Kerbal Space Program!  (Read 29282 times)
bhodi
Moderator
Posts: 6817

No lie.


Reply #140 on: May 22, 2015, 03:02:33 PM

Multiple command modules work fine; you need to right click on your chosen one and select "Control from here" on your probe core / command module before you take off. That resets your navball to the chosen part. Works with docking modules too.
Pennilenko
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3437


Reply #141 on: May 22, 2015, 03:05:23 PM

It  even freaks out when none are manned and there's only the probe body in control. On the last try the nav ball was "upside down" because the game thought that the cupola strapped at the other end was the real control module even though the whole flight was unmanned and only the probe body was there.

I'll see what the internet has to say on that matter.
Just by chance, are you aware that you can right click on a control capable module while on the launch pad and click "control from here" in order to fix the nav-ball orientation issue?

"See?  All of you are unique.  And special.  Like fucking snowflakes."  -- Signe
brellium
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #142 on: May 23, 2015, 05:38:36 AM

It  even freaks out when none are manned and there's only the probe body in control. On the last try the nav ball was "upside down" because the game thought that the cupola strapped at the other end was the real control module even though the whole flight was unmanned and only the probe body was there.

I'll see what the internet has to say on that matter.
Just by chance, are you aware that you can right click on a control capable module while on the launch pad and click "control from here" in order to fix the nav-ball orientation issue?
I remember a fun space station module I launched, where due to the structure of the module it would cause the whole launch vehicle to veer and crash, that I had to place the copula module upside down.  That one was a fun one to control.

‎"One must see in every human being only that which is worthy of praise. When this is done, one can be a friend to the whole human race. If, however, we look at people from the standpoint of their faults, then being a friend to them is a formidable task."
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #143 on: May 27, 2015, 08:02:48 AM

Of course I didn't know about the "control from here" option.  Facepalm

I've now played around witha few mods. Which has made the game a whole lot more interssting but also crashier (even though I use the texture optimization mod)

- procedural fairings is something that should be in the base game. Unfortunately it only seems to work with the small rocket parts. I can't seem to find parts for 2.5 or 3.75m parts
- planet shine and distant object enhancement is very nice
- The Environmental Visual Enhancements are very nice but make working in the map screen annoying as fuck. You can't turn off the visual enhancements for the map screen and the realistic planet textures  make actually seeing stuff and working with nav markers quite impossible
- KW rocketry offers a set of really nice and realistic loocking parts but is also very weird in what parts they chose to implement at times
- B9 is currently not 1.0 compatible which is bad because the parts library looks awesome
- Docking port indicator, kerbal alarm clock and a somewhat less cluttered version of Kerbal engineer (focusing on the most important info) should have been in the main game as well.

Ferram Aerospace is something that is both great (semi-realistic aerodynamic modelling of surfaces) and quite terrifying (semi-realistic aerodynamic modelling of surfaces makes things crash and burn more often). It's also really pointless. Because it tries to somewhat realistically model supersonic and transsonic effects in a game that doesn't offer you the mechanics and parts necessary to deal with them. It also doesn't really affect rockets all that much because mach effects don't really matter - except heating due to drag - when you go straight up and then sideways as is the Kerbal way.

The way it currently interacts with the base game is weird. It makes getting into orbit both easier, because it does model Kerbal's atmosphere and the flight surfaces more realistically the vehicles experience less drag, and harder, because you can't really go sideways in any way in the lower atmosphere. If you have any sort of angle of atack then the supersonic effects on drag will make you stall and spin out. So you end up having to spend more on circularizing your orbit later because you have to go straight up longer. It also makes re-entry more of a bitch. If you don't have something that is perfectly aerodynamically stable at transsonic speeds you'll flip and spin out and then burn up. If you have something that is you'll burn up due to re-entry heating because areobraking is not as effective as in the base game. So you end up overspending on control authority for the return vehicle to be able to stabilize yourself during re-entry. Which wouldn't work on a real capsule because the reaction wheels in real life have to adhere to the laws of physics and are therefore less effective than their ridiculous Kerbal counterparts.

It might make SSTOs more interesting to build though.
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6710

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #144 on: May 27, 2015, 08:58:08 AM

Yeah I never really got on with FAM. The way I looked at it was that it was an added layer of difficulty, not necessarily of added realism. So if you want some extra arbitrary difficulty it's there as an option.

The procedural fairings thing, is it that you haven't unlocked the research for the larger fairings? Shame B9 isn't working yet, that was always one of my favorite mods.

"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #145 on: May 27, 2015, 11:26:28 AM

I have access to larger fairings on both stock and KW parts. In fact I have unlocked both the 2.5m and 3.75m parts. It doesn't seem to be an R&D problem.
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6710

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #146 on: June 08, 2015, 03:31:50 AM

Nice, clear delta-V map for 1.02 (click for embiggened):


"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #147 on: June 09, 2015, 10:40:45 AM

After my first unmanned Duna and Eve landings I can say that the rule still holds: If you have enough Delta-V to go to the Mun you have enough delta-V to go to Duna and Eve. Planning the aerobraking/aerocapture maneuvers was thrilling. On Duna I went through the atmosphere 10 km above surface level to have enough drag to slow myself down. Planning this without lithobraking (hitting the ground) was challenging. On Eve I thrust limited my engines to lesss than 10% to be able to control my periapsis with enough precision to not explode. (anything below 75 km was kaboom).

Not any of this would have been possible without the "precise node" addon. I can also recommend "trajectories" which approximates the trajectories you'll follow while flying through the atmosphere and the resulting orbital path or escape trajectory. It helped greatly with my aerobraking maneuver planning.

I just wish 1.0.2 would be more stable. The game regularly crashes after an hour or two of play for me although I've limited myself to the fewest number of mods possible and never hit the 4 GB adress space limit per process. Which is a pity because this game would only be half as much fun without all of the mods
Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #148 on: June 10, 2015, 02:13:59 AM

Currently doing some rocket testing for my mission to put a kerbal on the mün without upgrading the KSC buildings. The lack of advanced research parts is only slightly difficult. What's more difficult is the 30 part/18 ton limit. But that's doable.

But you know what really hurts?


Managed to put these two little guys into orbit and bring them down safely.
cironian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 580

play his game!: solarwar.net


Reply #149 on: June 10, 2015, 03:00:07 AM

Currently doing some rocket testing for my mission to put a kerbal on the mün without upgrading the KSC buildings.

Well, that mission doesn't seem to specify bringing them back... Or even that they have to reach the Mün at survivable velocity. That makes it doable.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #150 on: June 10, 2015, 03:42:16 AM

So far I haven't had much luck designing something workable with the larger part sets. Everything is - naturally - so much more heavy that you won't get significantly more delta-v out of a first stage than you would with 1.5 m parts. At least if you refuse to go "full Kerbal" and won't build ridiciculous multi engine lift stage constraptions that cost a shitton of money and are strutted to Mun and back. Also the center of mass shifts so far due to fuel drain that those rockets become quite unmanagable to fly during ascent unless you use the fuel balancer mod or spent a ridiculuous amount on control authority and reaction wheels. Thirdly the joints between the larger parts and smaller parts seem to be exceptionally weak even compared to the "wobblyness" stock parts generally exhibit.

What usually happens is that the rocket will flip over and/or break up if you put any sort of AoA on it (even if it's less than 5°). What usually happens is that it'll fly OK for a few km if you fly it straight up and don't tilt it in any way. At about 5 - 6 km enough fuel has drained out of the tank that CoM moves too far from CoL and then the rocket just flips over - even when I fly it completely straight. Either that or it will simply break up at the joints due to aerodynamic drag if acceleration goes ever beyond 1 g or I accidentally reach mach 1 anywhere below 20 km above sea level.

I've had designs that never deviated more than 1° - 2° from prograde flip over and break up during ascent. Even without any sort of control input applied to them. This is ridiculous. A rocket has rotational symmetry and so all forces perpendicular to its axis should apply evenly over the whole 360° and therefore it shouldn't apply a net force. It also should have more than enough thrust to generate enough lift to be able to at least fly straight - regardless of how far CoM moves from CoL. In fact the more "lawn darty" it gets the better.

I wonder what I do wrong since I don't have those issues with the 1.5 m parts.
Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #151 on: June 10, 2015, 05:52:26 AM

Currently doing some rocket testing for my mission to put a kerbal on the mün without upgrading the KSC buildings.

Well, that mission doesn't seem to specify bringing them back... Or even that they have to reach the Mün at survivable velocity. That makes it doable.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

Bringing them back will actually end up being the easiest. You can't go on EVAs when off Kerbin, but I had no problem getting a kerbal to board a capsule when I shot it into space with him hanging off a ladder on the side. So I should be able to just land an escape vehicle next to the stranded kerbals and fly home.

EVA reports were collected like normal, although without the building upgrade you can't even place flags on kerbin.

So far I haven't had much luck designing something workable with the larger part sets. Everything is - naturally - so much more heavy that you won't get significantly more delta-v out of a first stage than you would with 1.5 m parts. At least if you refuse to go "full Kerbal" and won't build ridiciculous multi engine lift stage constraptions that cost a shitton of money and are strutted to Mun and back. Also the center of mass shifts so far due to fuel drain that those rockets become quite unmanagable to fly during ascent unless you use the fuel balancer mod or spent a ridiculuous amount on control authority and reaction wheels. Thirdly the joints between the larger parts and smaller parts seem to be exceptionally weak even compared to the "wobblyness" stock parts generally exhibit.

What usually happens is that the rocket will flip over and/or break up if you put any sort of AoA on it (even if it's less than 5°). What usually happens is that it'll fly OK for a few km if you fly it straight up and don't tilt it in any way. At about 5 - 6 km enough fuel has drained out of the tank that CoM moves too far from CoL and then the rocket just flips over - even when I fly it completely straight. Either that or it will simply break up at the joints due to aerodynamic drag if acceleration goes ever beyond 1 g or I accidentally reach mach 1 anywhere below 20 km above sea level.

I've had designs that never deviated more than 1° - 2° from prograde flip over and break up during ascent. Even without any sort of control input applied to them. This is ridiculous. A rocket has rotational symmetry and so all forces perpendicular to its axis should apply evenly over the whole 360° and therefore it shouldn't apply a net force. It also should have more than enough thrust to generate enough lift to be able to at least fly straight - regardless of how far CoM moves from CoL. In fact the more "lawn darty" it gets the better.

I wonder what I do wrong since I don't have those issues with the 1.5 m parts.

It sounds like you're going big for the wrong reason. Your dv problems, the weight transfer from the large dry mass difference,  and your structural problems all sound like you're trying to make a big, long, many stage rocket to increase your payload final speed. You don't build big rockets for big delta v, you build them for big payloads. I can't really be sure what you're trying to do, and so what the problem is, but if you post a few screenshots of builds and list payload amounts and destinations, and what tech unlocks you're using, then I can probably explain what's going on.
brellium
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #152 on: June 10, 2015, 07:19:39 AM

So far I haven't had much luck designing something workable with the larger part sets. Everything is - naturally - so much more heavy that you won't get significantly more delta-v out of a first stage than you would with 1.5 m parts. At least if you refuse to go "full Kerbal" and won't build ridiciculous multi engine lift stage constraptions that cost a shitton of money and are strutted to Mun and back. Also the center of mass shifts so far due to fuel drain that those rockets become quite unmanagable to fly during ascent unless you use the fuel balancer mod or spent a ridiculuous amount on control authority and reaction wheels. Thirdly the joints between the larger parts and smaller parts seem to be exceptionally weak even compared to the "wobblyness" stock parts generally exhibit.

What usually happens is that the rocket will flip over and/or break up if you put any sort of AoA on it (even if it's less than 5°). What usually happens is that it'll fly OK for a few km if you fly it straight up and don't tilt it in any way. At about 5 - 6 km enough fuel has drained out of the tank that CoM moves too far from CoL and then the rocket just flips over - even when I fly it completely straight. Either that or it will simply break up at the joints due to aerodynamic drag if acceleration goes ever beyond 1 g or I accidentally reach mach 1 anywhere below 20 km above sea level.

I've had designs that never deviated more than 1° - 2° from prograde flip over and break up during ascent. Even without any sort of control input applied to them. This is ridiculous. A rocket has rotational symmetry and so all forces perpendicular to its axis should apply evenly over the whole 360° and therefore it shouldn't apply a net force. It also should have more than enough thrust to generate enough lift to be able to at least fly straight - regardless of how far CoM moves from CoL. In fact the more "lawn darty" it gets the better.

I wonder what I do wrong since I don't have those issues with the 1.5 m parts.
I've been playing around with 1.02 for a bit.

  • Fins are important: Do not underestimate how important these things are, they will stabilize your craft and allow greater maneuverability.
  • Gravity Turns are important
  • When doing gravity turns avoid doing them when you see white around the craft (or worse red)
  • If you see white (or red) around the craft slow it down, you're bleeding delta-v and the craft is inefficient
  • If your craft is decelerating after a stage, wait until the craft accelerates again before trying a gravity turn
If you follow these you should have no problem with gravity turns.

This is the craft I used to land on Mun with a probe attached to knock out two temperature missions at the same time (Skipper Engines are the devil):

I was also trying to complete a docking mission at the same time with this craft which failed, 5600 Dv wasn't enough to re-establish a LKO on the return leg.

‎"One must see in every human being only that which is worthy of praise. When this is done, one can be a friend to the whole human race. If, however, we look at people from the standpoint of their faults, then being a friend to them is a formidable task."
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #153 on: June 10, 2015, 09:41:56 AM

Thanks for the tips but I have the basics down so far I think. I wouldn't have managed to land on Eve with a rocket that has barely more than 5500 m/s of delta-v. Flying to the Mun or Minmus, landing and returning is easy at this point. I do this all the time for contracts (I don't want to praise myself just to give context where I'm at right now)

I need a setup that gets me enough delta-v to go to Duna or Eve (or maybe even Ike or Gilly), be able to do a polar orbit and then return to Kerbin so that I can recover all of the delicious science. Even when I use the optimal launch window, possible gravity assists and aerocapture I need about 9k to 10 k of delta-v. I suppose that this should be possible with classical rocketry and without using the more OP aspects of KSP (nuclear motor, asparagus staging, ion engine etc.)

I don't even have that much of a payload, it's just a science and survey satellite that weighs about 9t. My goal is to recover the satellite via re-entry and touchdown and not by orbital rendezvous. I've designed the satellite with re-entry in mind so it has a CoL that is close to the CoM even when 'dry' (which is not that hard since the thing only carries monopropellant). So far I've managed to get that thing to the Mun or Minmus and back to the Kerbin space center with about 5 - 6 k of delta-v multiple times. Using 1.5 m parts mostly. I just don't seem to be able to get a two or maybe three stage design going that is able to give me the amount of delta-v I need for a return trip to Duna or Eve and that is actually able to lift off and/or be stable during ascent.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #154 on: June 10, 2015, 09:57:23 AM

I have two main issues at the moment (all with FAR installed)

- I need a lifter stage that is able to carry my survey sat and enough fuel for 4 - 5 k of delta-v into low kerbal orbit.
- The contraption should be able to gravity turn and to not topple over or disintegrate during ascent.

My experiments usually end up in one of several ways

- The rocket is too heavy to even lift itself off the ground (TWR close to 1)
- The rocket produces too much thrust and either flips over or disintegrates due to transsonic drag at a few km (limitng thrust alleviates this somewhat)
- The rocket flips over or breaks up during gravity turns even when I keep my maneuvers below 5° AoA. (even when FAR doesn't complain about high AoA)
- The rocket flips over or breaks up during ascent because the ratio of dry mass to wet mass is to high (CoM shifts too much during ascent)
- The rocket breaks up at the joint/stack separator of stage 1 and 2 as soon as I deviate from the prograde vector during gravity turns
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #155 on: June 10, 2015, 03:18:23 PM

I've compiled a few screenshots. The rocket I made consists of:

- a probodobodyne OKTO with a Z-200 battery bank and solar panels inside a conic fairing (so that SAS works during ascent)
- a rockomax brand adapter
- a large advanced reaction wheel
- a rockomax jumbo-64 liquid fuel tank (the standard orange fuel tank)
- an RE-I5 "Skipper" Engine
- 4 large fins

The resulting vessel will fly straight up until fuel runs out and it'll reach an apoapsis of about 3.5 km.


When I attach 4 solid fuel boosters and some struts the vessel will flip over at a height of about 2.6 km and a speed of mach 0.6 (230 m/s). Note that CoM and CoL have barely moved or rather they have both moved by the same amount due to the attached boosters.


Shot of the instant the vessel flips over. Note that FAR claims that all flight parameters are nominal. There has been no control input by me except hitting the space bar to launch this.


When this happens and a second stage is attached to this, then the rocket will flip, bend at the connection due to the stress of the aerodynamic forces that are unevenly applied and then snap in half and disintegrate.

edit. At this height and speed there should not be any sort of perpendicular force that is applied to the vessel. It has rotational symmetry, enough lift due to the large fins, enough thrust due to a TWR of 1.78 and it flies at 0° prograde. Even if the boosters add a significant amount of drag the net force should be applied evenly.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 03:25:50 PM by Jeff Kelly »
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6710

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #156 on: June 10, 2015, 04:29:42 PM

Try putting RCS on it. I'd put 4 up top, near the reaction wheel, and 4 down low, right at the base of the orange tank, just under the fins. If that doesn't work try bigger RCS. Also put a fin on each solid booster.

I've not got much experience with FAR though, so those might be stupid suggestions!

"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
brellium
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #157 on: June 10, 2015, 05:35:01 PM


Shot of the instant the vessel flips over. Note that FAR claims that all flight parameters are nominal. There has been no control input by me except hitting the space bar to launch this.


When this happens and a second stage is attached to this, then the rocket will flip, bend at the connection due to the stress of the aerodynamic forces that are unevenly applied and then snap in half and disintegrate.

edit. At this height and speed there should not be any sort of perpendicular force that is applied to the vessel. It has rotational symmetry, enough lift due to the large fins, enough thrust due to a TWR of 1.78 and it flies at 0° prograde. Even if the boosters add a significant amount of drag the net force should be applied evenly.
Put the fins on the boosters.

*damnedest thing, I cannot recreate it.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 05:54:37 PM by brellium »

‎"One must see in every human being only that which is worthy of praise. When this is done, one can be a friend to the whole human race. If, however, we look at people from the standpoint of their faults, then being a friend to them is a formidable task."
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #158 on: June 10, 2015, 06:08:38 PM

I'll try your suggestions tomorrow. I'll also try what I should have done in the first place, namely get rid of all my mods and check if it is an issue with one of them. If you can't reproduce my issues it might very well be a mod issue.

Note that none of this happens when I use only 1.25 m parts. I can come up with ridiculously unbalanced contraptions that are a bitch to keep straight but at least go directly up.
brellium
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #159 on: June 10, 2015, 06:10:14 PM

Try putting RCS on it. I'd put 4 up top, near the reaction wheel, and 4 down low, right at the base of the orange tank, just under the fins. If that doesn't work try bigger RCS. Also put a fin on each solid booster.

I've not got much experience with FAR though, so those might be stupid suggestions!
RCS is cheating and requires additional resources you shouldn't need during a launch.

Jeff, I cannot recreate that problem, which means it's either a mod, or you're just unlucky in placement and found the magical flip spot for booster placement, try moving the boosters up.

It fliest straight up with and without SAS, with or without struts on the boosters, with fins either on the rocket itself or the boosters.

‎"One must see in every human being only that which is worthy of praise. When this is done, one can be a friend to the whole human race. If, however, we look at people from the standpoint of their faults, then being a friend to them is a formidable task."
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #160 on: June 11, 2015, 03:30:17 PM

I can confirm Brellium's post. I installed Ferram and tried your rocket, it seems to work fine. It managed to make it into space with only a slight drift with sas turned off, even. So it's probably some kind of weird mod interaction. Also make sure you're using the latest version of everything.

What kind of faring did you use? I used the AE-FF1. It's a stock part, and I don't see it's separator on your staging. Did you use some kind of mod pack part? That might not be playing nice with ferram.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #161 on: June 11, 2015, 07:02:40 PM

I did a clean reinstall and tried the rocket with stock aero. It flies straight up as was expected. I then added Ferram and the rocket flips over again. doesn't matter where on the tank I place the boosters by the way.

Gore I originally used the procedural fairings mod for the fairing but it also flips over if I use the stock fairings. Basically every 2.5 m or 3.75 m rocket I build flips once I add boosters while a 1.25 m version does not.

I found a workaround, if I activate the main engine and add a tiny amount of thrust (even if it is a negligible amount) from the main engine then it won't flip over. The engine just has to deliver any sort of thrust even if it doesn't add anything meaningful to the acceleration provided by the boosters. So only boosters active -> flips, activate engine and add a tiny amount of thrust -> doesn't flip.

I'll see if this issue also pops up on OS X or if it's just a Windows issue. It seems to be an issue with FAR though because it also happens if FAR is the only installed mod.
Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #162 on: June 15, 2015, 10:48:21 PM

Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #163 on: June 16, 2015, 02:22:20 AM

Touchdown!
cironian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 580

play his game!: solarwar.net


Reply #164 on: June 16, 2015, 06:15:37 AM

Wow. Didn't think that was possible.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #165 on: June 17, 2015, 06:37:00 AM

So Squad just announced a PS4 port of KSP. Which is just  Head scratch. The port will be done by an external developer that has only done bad shovelware games up to this point which is even more  Head scratch.

Since most of the original devs are working on porting KSP over to Unity 5.1 instead of fixing bugs thathave been active for months now this does not bode well.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #166 on: June 23, 2015, 03:39:18 PM

The new patch 1.0.4 has just ruined my 200+ hour career mode save. Basically everything I ever built exploded due to the new heating system. Since I can't attach heatsinks to ships that are already in planetary orbit or in transit I've lost basically all of my ships and probes and my space stations.

Also since I bought the game on steam I can't revert back to version 1.0.2 which means that everything I achieved over the last few weeks is now irrevocably lost.

Fuck this.
Pennilenko
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3437


Reply #167 on: June 23, 2015, 07:18:11 PM

The new patch 1.0.4 has just ruined my 200+ hour career mode save. Basically everything I ever built exploded due to the new heating system. Since I can't attach heatsinks to ships that are already in planetary orbit or in transit I've lost basically all of my ships and probes and my space stations.

Also since I bought the game on steam I can't revert back to version 1.0.2 which means that everything I achieved over the last few weeks is now irrevocably lost.

Fuck this.

"See?  All of you are unique.  And special.  Like fucking snowflakes."  -- Signe
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #168 on: June 24, 2015, 03:38:37 AM

Re-downloaded the game after deleting the game folder.

Even on a new save the game has all kinds of weird glitches. Radially attached devices like solar panels or antennae now sometimes give an "cannot activate while stowed" error if you have a cargo or service bay anywhere else on your ship. If you have two or more that are symmetrically attached it's usually only one that gives the error.

Antennas sometimes get stuck while sending science (won't fold up again), stopping transmission won't work (still stuck) and once you go to the space center and back the antenna gets unstuck but the transmitted science is lost.

I managed to break two Gigantor solar panels by rotating my spacecraft (snapped clean off).

Once I tried to send some science back and my whole service bay and all batteries exploded .

Stuff still sometimes randomly explodes still. Temp is nominal for all of the flight then suddenly overheat markers appear on all parts of the craft and it explodes.Takes just two or three seconds from everything is fine and dandy to shit goes boom.

There seems to be a glitch in reentry heating calculations. If you come in hot you'll sometimes explode the instant you hit the atmosphere (e.g. counter switches from 70,000 to 69,999 on Kerbin re-entry and boom). Doesn't matter how long you are in the atmosphere either, I had this happen once with an periapsis of about 69,600 meters (I was going 7 km/s but still)

There are all kinds of weird phantom forces that hit your craft once physics winds up (switching from tracking station to a craft will make it "yank" around sometimes) or the physics context switches (e.g. from orbit to atmosphere) sometiomes the force exerted is high enough to significantly change your orbit or to break stuff. I have a landed craft where the solar panels will fall of if I switch to it, just from the force the physics model exerts on it during "wind-up". I several times had a force that was so high and sudden that after "revert to launch" my whole craft including the launch clamps yanked sideways and ended up at an angle of 45°.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #169 on: June 24, 2015, 03:45:49 AM

I haven't built a new craft yet (only worked with ships created in 1.0.2) but it seems that all of the crafts built before 1.0.3 are borked. Somehow the game seems to be confused about which parts are attached to which other parts and then screws up the physics calculations. Since 1.0.3 now models heat convection, heat conduction and shock heating seperately this confuses the heating physics to such an extend that shit blows up.
Der Helm
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3934


Reply #170 on: June 24, 2015, 04:34:01 AM

I haven't built a new craft yet (only worked with ships created in 1.0.2) but it seems that all of the crafts built before 1.0.3 are borked. Somehow the game seems to be confused about which parts are attached to which other parts and then screws up the physics calculations. Since 1.0.3 now models heat convection, heat conduction and shock heating seperately this confuses the heating physics to such an extend that shit blows up.
If you have your old saves, try (in the steam client) properties -< betas and change "none" to -> previous stable builds.

In the case of KSP I have no clue what "previous" version it downloads, but if it works, you can make a client backup and play the old build until they fix the bugs.

"I've been done enough around here..."- Signe
apocrypha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6710

Planes? Shit, I'm terrified to get in my car now!


Reply #171 on: June 24, 2015, 04:52:35 AM


"Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1915.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #172 on: June 24, 2015, 05:16:08 AM

No all of the things I mention happened in KSP 1.0.4
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #173 on: June 24, 2015, 05:26:49 AM

I basically spent last night trying to salvage my save file by starting from a clean install first (I had made a backup of my save file first) and then only installing the mods that are absolutely needed to be able to load a save (every mod part that is attached to a craft has to be there). Fortunately I only needed KW rocketry and Scansat. Which both reportedly work in 1.0.4. When that didn't work I reinstalled the game again and started a new save to see if my save file was the culprit.

btw. if you load a save that contains an active craft with a part that is no longer installed (due to a missing mod) the UI doesn't work anymore, even when you haven't selected the craft. You can't even assemble anything in the VAB.

All the things mentioned happened on a clean new save in sandbox mode with vehicles I had created prior to 1.0.3. Which made testing this annoying as fuck because planning an orbital transfer without precise node installed is shitty.
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5004

I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.


Reply #174 on: June 24, 2015, 05:28:19 AM

I'd rather just revert to 1.0.2 actually if at all possible
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  PC/Console Gaming  |  Topic: Kerbal Space Program!  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC