AVaughan

Going back on topic. I'm pretty sure that multithreaded physics simulations have existed for quite a few years. eg from wikipedia However I don't know whether any existing multithreaded physics libraries meet ksp's needs and whether any of them could be integrated into unity. Regarding the slowdowns with large part counts, ksp could probably implement something similar to a welding mod, where when two similar objects of similar diameter are attached, (eg 2 fuel tanks), they could be welded into one part, at least for most physics calculations. Ideally the editor could even detect that fuel tanks are not only node attached to their parent, but also surface attached to another part in the tree, and 'weld those multiple tanks into one tank. As long as all tanks that are welded this way are all part of the same stage, the only time you need to consider them as separate items is when one of them collides into the ground/another vessel, and when calculating heating during re-entry . That would improve stiffness of large craft, and could also significantly reduce the number of parts you need to calculate physics for. I'm also not sure how much physics calculations ksp does for "physicsless parts" eg things like rcs, lights, most science instruments, most parts that only surface attach. Conceptually they don't need to be considered for most physics calculations. You only need to do some simple stuff, eg check for pressure damage, and transfer heat to/from their parents during re-entry. But that is all linear in number of parts, and not O(n^2).

Drills extend out, and then down. So if they are lifting your base, then they are positioned too low. The kraken shaking things to bits is often physics causing pieces to vibrate. One tick things are in the wrong position relative to each other, so there is a physics force accelerating them towards the correct position. When they get to the correct position, they have too much momentum to stop instantly, so they continue moving. Another few ticks later they are again in the wrong relative positions, so there is a physics force accelerating them the otherway. Long thin structures are often problematic that way. Sometimes struts/autostruts help, sometimes they make things worse. Sometimes you can save things by timewarping for a few seconds. (No physics is applied during timewarp).

That sort of thing happens on pc as well. I try to test any new design on the launchpad before sending it to other planets.

Personally if you have a failure mod, then I think things like batteries should be able to fail, but most of the time that should be a non-catastrophic failure, ie the battery no longer holds any charge and becomes useless. Same sort of thing for solar panels. And with enough tech and "practical in use testing" things like batteries and solar panels should end up with a mtbf measured in years. (Though deployable solar panels might have a significant chance of failing to extend/retract).

I generally try to land some of my manned Mun or Minmus missions in whatever biomes I haven't already farmed from Kerbin. Flying planes to the poles is just too boring for me.

There used to be a demo available. That was effectively your ksp free version.

So will these new thrust plates and structural tubes be a solution to using a 0.625m engine (eg the Spark) under 1.25 tank without looking odd/needing to be enclosed in a fairing ?

But it seemed fine for me, so I'm not sure what the issue is that you think should be fixed. The only thing I can think of is people either trying to fly the turn themselves, and not doing a good job of it, or throttling down at the wrong time, when the tutorial explicitly says that that rocket doesn't need to throttle down. Given how much control authority that rocket has in the lower atmosphere it is very easy to overshoot when trying to steer. Hence my comment about needing to use fine controls, and why I'd suggest letting Val just follow the provided target marker. (Something the tutorial also suggests).

Personally, for a new player, I'd recommend initially just letting target lock steer. that does a good enough job. Afterwards you can replay it steering manually, if you want.

So I tried the orbital tutorial in a completely vanilla 1.3.1 install, followed the instructions and reached orbit with 58 oxidiser and 48 liquid fuel left. (I did have Val follow the target marker, rather than fly the turn myself, but the instructions suggested that, so I consider that to be following the instructions). So it's possible to get that rocket to orbit in the tutorial, and I'm not sure what is the cause of the problem you are having? Edit: I also flew a manual turn, and reached orbit with 48 oxidiser left. (I did need to enable fine controls. With those steerable fins, that rocket has way too much low altitude control authority for my tastes).

I only know what is in the linked threads. (And I haven't visited any asteroids in my 1.3.1 campaign yet). But I would assume that asteroids getting reseeded on every load would have to be a bug.

Well we haven't seen Emiko Asteroid in what 18 months or more now? Last time I recall you mentioning Emiko Station, you wanted to rebuild the station. So just find another seed for a monster E-class asteroid, and build your new station, and we will probably not be able to tell the asteroids apart.

Do read the forum thread that quote can from as there is some good info in that as well. Worst case, you can probably generate a number of seeds (or hyper edit your way to a number of asteroids to find one with a decent seed), until you can find a seed that will reproduce an acceptable substitute for your existing asteroids.

@Just Jim My comment was based on what Squelch (a member of Squad staff) wrote I'm assuming he was talking about some asteroids changing seeds, when first loaded in 1.3.1, and not about them changing seed every load, but I'm not sure. From that thread the appropriate bug is https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/16087 .

Also I'm not sure that this will get fixed in 1.4. Based on what someone from Squad wrote in the linked thread, the change is intentional and necessary, so I'm guessing Squad isn't intending to revert it.

How about with a 9 ton rocket? (9 tons on the kerbin launchpad, with refueling on Minmus and Gilly).

Whilst the exploits won't, the patches to fix them are expected to have performance implications (although they might not be big enough to be noticable).

Not sure whether each draw call to graphics drivers would be affected. I'm pretty sure that in the past graphics drivers ran in ring 0 and were effectively part of the kernel. That had security implications, so it might have been changed since then.

Seriously, I think this and all three parts of Whispers/Shadows/Revelations of the Kraken are TOTM worthy. Indeed I'm surprised that none of the other three have tags TOTM tags.

I'm far from an expert, but the most I expect a private citizen to get under the Trades Practices Act for something like KSP is the ability to force the retailer to refund your purchase. (Even there it is probably easier, simpler and faster to get your credit company to do a charge back). If the company attempts to mislead consumers about their right under Australian Law they might also get fined (and possibly ordered by the courts to run ads and/or display signs detailing consumer rights under Australian Law). It is not clear that a court would consider that KSP is defective enough that Squad/Microsoft/Sony should be forced to offer refunds. I don't own a console version, but since it does run, and you can play (build and launch rockets) a court might decide that the game mostly works. There is also a concept of getting what you paid for. Does the game do everything Squads advertising claimed? Do you as a consumer get entertainment value from KSP?

I played a bit in New Horizons in 1.3.0. I had a few cases of ships which where in stable and nearly circular orbits of the gas giant suddenly changing orbits to highly elliptical orbits. I'm guessing that there is a Kopernicus bug there somewhere, however I could never reproduce it, so it seemed pointless to report it.

More likely so new players learn that there is a throttle control. Setting the throttle to zero isn't going to help most of my rockets if I accidentally hit space. Unless I'm playing RO, if I stage with zero throttle, most of my rockets will detach from their launch clamps and fall to the ground.

I was. I'll fix my comment above to reflect that in a minute.

It's actually common practice for early access games with online rankings/progress/xp tracking to reset everyones online rankings/lvl/progress when the game does actually releases. If nothing else, the new players that buy the game on release day expect a level playing field. (It doesn't matter whether you only play pve, just seeing players who obviously have lvls/xp earned from before the game released might be off putting to new players who just bought the game. So typically companies will either segrate new players on new servers, or reset everyones progress or close the early access servers and make you start a new character. I wouldn't expect to be able to transfer my existing progress to the new servers, unless the company has explicitly said they would allow that. I've also participated in several beta ftp games where everyone's progress was regularly reset without warning, anytime the developers decided that was the easiest way to fix something.

Personally I'll be surprised if they release 1.2 for consoles and not 1.3. (But hey I've been surprised before. It wouldn't be the first time). The most significant change between 1.2 and 1.3 was localisation support, which is something I think they'd want to have on consoles. And it makes little sense to spend this much money on redoing the port, if they aren't planning on supporting the game on consoles going forward. That means that they would want to be support whatever DLC the PC version gets. Which means they will want to be able to port changes from the PC version accross to the consoles on an ongoing basis.