AVaughan

@Zosma: Does it freeze if you remove all mods, then start a new save? (For what it's worth I've had no problems, but I've been playing vanilla, and not on a Mac).

I think that all the new part variants means that 1.5.x now uses too much RAM to run acceptable on 32 bit systems. I think that is why Squad have dropped 32 bit support.

There is also playstyle "C". Build the return capsule. Look at its mass (it's in the engineers report). Add twice that in fuel tanks. Add an engine. That stage has around 2k in dv. Look at the mass of the existing ship. Add twice it's mass in fuel tanks. Add an engine. That is roughly another 2k dv. Repeat until you have enough dv for the mission. (Make sure you have enough TWR on lander/takeoff engines. But the engineers report can help there as well). No dV readout or spreadsheet required. Now obviously different people will prefer different styles. If I'm playing vanilla, then "C" provides an easy way to design something for a mission with a known dV requirement. (I typically overdesign, and add a generous margin, and have sometimes landed the Munar landing stage back on Kerbin). If I'm playing modded, then I'll normally add KER and/or mechjeb, and probably a lifesupport mod and play in x2.56 or x3.2 scales. (At 2.56 or 3.2 scales, with lifesupport requirements as well, then I'd rather not allow extra margin the way I do in stock).

@Aazard Sounds like https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155700-131-realism-overhaul-v1210-29-apr-2018/&do=findComment&comment=3476718from the RO thread. (No word on what is the cause yet).

@Vas RO depends on FAR (amongst other things), and as far as I know there isn't a release of FAR for 1.4.x yet. There may be other similar outdated dependencies (I haven't checked lately) but there is not much point in the RO developers trying to make a release that normal users can't install because the dependencies aren't ready.

I have no idea whether there will be mouse and keyboard support. But the single most important thing that makes it a console release is that it will run on a console. So Squad could choose to offer mouse and keyboard support on the console version, if they want to.

@Tonka Crash From the screenshots it looks like you have Scansat installed. 2 posts above your post Gordon Dry said

In addition, if you aren't sure how recent your latest quicksave was, then there is a fair chance that the normal autosave is more recent. ALT-F9 will let choose which to load.

It sounds like your engines aren't thrusting through the center of mass. (Reaction wheels can compensate for small imbalances, but in general you want to make sure that engines are arranged so that the net thrust is through the center of mass).

It seems to still have some problems that should be overcome. If you plot a maneuver whilst in atmosphere, it seems to use sea-level ISP numbers. Easily seen if you launch, raise you AP to 80k, then add a maneuver node to circularise. For me that circularisation is typically on terriers or poodles, and burn time indicator is complaining that the vessel doesn't have enough dV, even though it actually has plenty once it clears the atmosphere. If you finish a burn at low throttle it seems to sometimes miscalculate the burn duration (and burn start time) for the next burn. (It seems to assume that the next burn will also be at low throttle). I've also seen a number of reports about buggy behaviour with nervas.

My comment was about saying "We are considering adding multiplayer" (or alternative phrasing such as "It's something we might consider doing"). I wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't give a definitive "No", (if Squad decides that they want to do that then go ahead. Personally I'm not convinced that will stop people wanting multiplayer, nor am I convinced that it will reduce the thread where people keep asking for it. So overall I just don't see a net upside from giving a definitive "No"). They also shouldn't give a definitive yes unless they are 100% committed to implementing it. But making any sort of in-between comment will just raise hopes a lot more than the current stay silent approach. Personally I think that anyone who actually gets their hopes up in the current stay silent approach is deluding themselves. Getting multiplayer to work reliably and well is going to be a big task, and I simply can't see Squad doing it. Indeed I consider doing it right to be an impossible design challenge. How would you design the system to make timewarp work if player one wants to go to Jool direct, player 2 wants to do an Eve-Kerbin-Jool transfer, and player 3 wants to fly to the poles in a plane in Kerbin's atmosphere, before designing his Jool mission. (Don't forget that they all have contracts with expiry dates. So you can't allow players 1 and 2 to timewarp 2 years whilst player 3 is in the Spaceplane hangar designing a new plane).

You are missing the point. There is no reason for them to make an announcement that might raise false hopes. There is no benefit to saying "We are considering implementing multiplayer". All it does is raise hopes, which will lead to a disappointed backlash if they fail to implement it.

Saying "We're still considering it." will raise hopes. Given how some of the community will react to disappointment, Squad shouldn't say that unless they are committed to implementing it.

Not everyone will enjoy learning by trial and error. For those people there are plenty of you-tube tutorials (plus in game tutorials). I recommend Scott Manley's tutorials.

@Xd the great No. Updating the game can result in mods not working, if any of them are incompatible with the new version. That can result in a broken save. Steam simply updates the game.

@JPLRepo A couple of weeks ago someone from Squad mentioned in https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/178756-ksp-weekly-the-moon-race/ This seems to be the relevant changelog entry. After playing with 1.5.x for a while, my impression is that the bouncing of landers is actually worse. (I don't play much with planes, so I admit haven't tested them). That was in a completely stock version of 1.5.1 (zero mods). The initial landing was with everything at default settings. That is more bounces than I experienced with similar designs in 1.4.5. (I count about 7 bounces during the first landing. The last time I landed a lander on Minmus in 1.4.5 it had about 2 bounces. (Admittedly a different, heavier design, with heavier landing legs). Why is damper always set so low? (A real world car with such poor shock absorbers would be completely and dangerously unroadworthy). A damper should absorb a portion of the downward velocity energy during spring compression, and a portion of the spring's energy during spring extension, effectively reducing the velocity of the craft with every bounce. This damper seems to be almost non-existent. Also why is the damper limited to 2?

For mods that are only compatible with a particular KSP version (eg Kopernicus, and probably some of the visual mods you are also having trouble with) you first need to get the version of the mod that matches your version of KSP. (As far as I'm aware virtually all mods that work on modern version of KSP will work correctly with 64bit, so 64bit shouldn't be an issue. Indeed if the mod author say a mod is compatible with 1.5.x, then by definition it needs to be 64bit compatible, since there is no 32 bit version of 1.5.x). Once you have your mods working, you also need to make sure that Steam doesn't update KSP, because an update will mean that the mods, (and hence any saved game that depends on those mods) will break. (If that happens with a game that uses Kopernicus, then since Kopernicus is used to change/add new/different planets/moons to the system, any satellites/ships that orbit any of the changed planets/moons are likely to have their orbits disrupted, which pretty much wrecks any ongoing missions). The simplest and most effective way to do that is install your mods into a copy of KSP that isn't under Steam control. It wasn't (and still isn't) clear whether you were having problems getting Kopernicus working with 1.5.0 or 1.5.1. (You still haven't answered which precise version of ksp you first tried. You did mention trying 1.4.4, but it isn't clear what version of kopernicus you tried to use with KSP 1.4.4. (As far as I can tell there was no Kopernicus release that is compatible with KSP 1.4.4)). Many planet packs that depend on Kopernicus will probably work with 1.5.1, once there is a compatible Kopernicus release. In the meantime, you can wait, or you can rollback to KSP 1.4.5 and use one of the kopernicus releases that are compatible with 1.4.5. (eg https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus-Backport/releases/tag/backport-1.4.5-5 or https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus/releases/tag/release-1.4.5-4). (Technically there is a third choice. If you have the development skills, you could download the source of Kopernicus, make the necessary changes and then build a version that is 1.5.1 compatible. But if you do that then don't expect any support from the mod author, and don't distribute it to other people, unless you are going to provide them with support). Copying KSP to another directory won't magically help you get those mods working, but it will help you keep your mods working, by preventing Steam from updating KSP, and was just general advice to anyone who seems new to dealing with version locked mods. TL;DR You need to get version of your mods that are compatible with your KSP version. For Kopernicus that means either waiting, or rolling back to 1.4.5. At a guess the visual mods are probably similar.

If I recall correctly both 1.2 and 1.3 had public pre-release versions. Both of those are after version 1.0.5. 1.2 had 2 patch release (1.2.1 and 1.2.2) whilst 1.3 had 1 patch release (1.3.1). At least one of the beta's was run through Steam betas, and was only available to players who had KSP on steam. Some people (including many who bought the game during early access) didn't own the game on steam and so couldn't participate. Some of them were pretty vocal and felt they were being unfairly treated. If I recall correctly Squad fixed that for the next set of pre-releases. I don't recall anyone saying that allowing the community to test pre-releases betas was insulting; nor do a recall the community as a whole asking for those pre-releases to stop. People did complain about Squad making new formal releases which contained bugs that they thought Squad should have found and fixed prior to release. (In my opinion the early releases in the 1.4 series were pretty bad. I consider some of those releases to be of beta quality, and some people felt that publishing such a beta quality release as a formal release was insulting).

Well since I don't expect Squad to change that, you could move/copy KSP outside steam, so that Steam can't update your copy of KSP unexpectedly. (That is always good practice for modded installs. In my opinion anyone who plays a modded career should always do that). You could also get in the habit of making a manual named save occasionally, so you can revert that way. Next option is to open the saves directory, where you will find a directory named backup, that has several older copies of persistence.sfs. Lastly for such a minor version update, you can probably manually edit the version field in the save, so that KSP could load the save after you have told steam to rollback to an earlier version. (That last is not really not applicable in this case, because steam 1.5.0 isn't available in the Steam betas tab).

Kopernicus is tied to an exact ksp version, and as far as I can tell hasn't been updated for version for 1.5.1 yet. That means that Kopernicus, and anything that depends on Kopernicus won't work with 1.5.1 until it gets an update. I recommend never playing a modded KSP career in the steam installation folder, but move/copy the KSP folder to another location before installing mods. That way steam will never unexpectedly update the version of KSP you are playing. (That works fine on windows, and I expect it will work on a Mac as well). (The reasons for the version lock are in the kopernicus thread. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/140580-150-1-backports-kopernicus-kittopiatech/&do=findComment&comment=3471447 . Feel free to read them, but even if you don't agree, please don't complain about the mod authors decision.

Even if they are both mistakes, two such mistakes getting made in a relatively short period of time, and then covered up (or at least not adequately reported and followed up) is a problem. And the work culture/environment that allows that to happen on mission critical space hardware probably isn't something that can be easily and quickly fixed.

It should not, if your spacecraft/rover has a relay antenna. Spacecraft with a relay antenna should be capable of relaying signals from the suit radio back to the KSC. I'd actually settle for a range of even 20 metres, just enough that I can radio back a report surface sample report, before grabbing a second sample to put in the capsule. (Yes, I know I can send it back from the capsule, but if the capsule already has 20 other science reports, then sending just one back gets tedious quickly).

@Orc The old 32 bit KSP_Data directory was 1.55 Gb, so dropping 32bit support saves a lot of space. 2.2 GB sounds is about right.

I ran my 1.4.3 career out of tree with noticing any problems.

I always copy my KSP install outside of Steam before installing mods. That way KSP updates won't break a modded career.