Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neilski

  1. Update: I've now tried a similar craft in 1.9.1, 1.10.1 and 1.11.1. Outcome: things work perfectly in 1.9.1 and 1.10.1; they don't work AT ALL in 1.11.1. I suspect that all surface recovery missions are currently impossible until this is fixed. I will report it as a bug on the tracker shortly (and add a link here). Thanks for the assistance, folks! Edit: bug is now on the tracker here
  2. It isn't happening for me. Weird that it's occurring for some of us but not others. In both a long-standing career and a brand new one, pods seem to have the correct SAS level for me. It's a super-minor bug in some senses, but also (in my view) worth fixing pretty urgently, before a load of newbies find that their craft which had full SAS suddenly have less or none... Has it been reported yet on the tracker?
  3. Yeah, I have them too, though I don't really need 'em cos of the wheels. Very handy for translation while hovering though, indeed. Ahh, good ideas on both fronts there. Must check!
  4. Ah, cool! I'm struggling to make sense of your picture but was the Klaw deployed vertically downwards on a piston? And was this in 1.11? I'm wondering what's fundamentally different between your ship and mine...
  5. Actually the very first craft just had the hinged wheels and no piston, and I couldn't make that one work either. Yeah, certainly possible, but the weird thing is that the version of that craft that I used before buying BG was actually successful - it had no wheels and so it was a total bugger to get it to hover and land right on top, but when I got the alignment right, it just worked. No explosions, no "fake" grabs... Oh yes, this has bitten me several times already and it'll probably bite me again because I never seem to remember to edit the priority in the VAB! Thanks for the tip about the image URL - will try again next time.
  6. OK, wow it's good to know that it's (or at least was) possible to make it work - were these successes in 1.11 or earlier? I'm thinking of trying my craft on an earlier version just to see if something broke in 1.11. Most of the time it doesn't explode (just acts like it grabbed, but the module doesn't stick to the Klaw despite offering me a release button) but when it does, it happens right at the point of contact. I have formed the impression that if the contact arises from the Klaw being moved into contact by the hinge/piston, it won't work (failure to grab, or bang). If the Klaw comes into contact from the ship itself moving, it's all good
  7. Before my recent purchase of BG, I had tackled a few "surface recovery" contracts and had sworn off them. The way I approached them, it was just so damn painful to hover a craft with a Klaw above the module and try to land on it. What I really wanted was a way to lower a craft onto the module and then take off. Once I bought BG, I took the next surface recovery contract I was offered and had a go. I tried two approaches with BG parts: a wheeled rover, with the wheels on alligator hinges so it could lower its body (+ Klaw) onto the module, and a modified version of the rover with the Klaw on a piston to just lower the Klaw directly onto the module. Outcome: both approaches failed miserably, because either the whole craft blew up, or the Klaw appeared to engage (and the PAW offered me a "release" button) but the module didn't move with the rover. Very very frustrating. Many attempts, and not a single success. See pic below, if it works, for a flavour of things looked. Has anyone made these BG parts work for picking stuff up? (PS: the "Insert image from URL" function won't work for me. This forum is just plain odd :-)) https://imgur.com/a/kmOGybA
  8. For info, I've just tested both of these issues with 1.10.1. Kerbals don't exhibit the "stuck to the ground" problem in 1.10.1. However, the LT-2 struts (and perhaps others) do exhibit the issue above. I may download an earlier version and see if it shows up there. However, both of these are pretty minor, as bugs go, so I'm not sure there's any point in reporting them at all given the severe bugs that are still awaiting repair. (Chief on my personal list: the asteroid mass bug which was actually made much worse by the latest fix.) Speaking of other bugs, the "ship accelerates when Kerbal goes EVA" one bit me last night during a satellite repair mission. I think this was the first time I realised what was happening (on a previous occasion I thought the game just needed a restart). When I played about with it, I spotted that just after EVA, the Kerbal was a long way from the hatch on the Mk1 lander can (about a torso-length - I can't seem to paste an image into this post) and when I moved him up and down with W/S, he got rather closer to the ship; when he got to the "normal distance" (basically touching the ship) the buggy acceleration stopped entirely, having reduced somewhat as he got closer.
  9. Wow, that's already insanely low. How much dv does the probe have?
  10. What tool do you use to help set these up? (I'm a total noob at gravity assists.)
  11. Huh? This is KSP - making sense is optional Also, HECS2 have great features for the mass - huge battery capacity, decent reaction wheels, great SAS... But I will confess I can't think of a good reason to put two of 'em right under a HECS
  12. I've struggled to find any instructions for this mode (somebody please post a link if any exist) but I found by accident that after you pick up a part (from a cargo module or just somewhere on a ship) you can hit "i" again and it's stored temporarily in a magical invisible fashion (but the Kerbal turns blueish as a hint that something is afoot). You can then EVA around, hit "i" again, and bingo it's on your cursor waiting to be placed. So, no need to ditch the jetpack. Ditching the chute does help tho cos you can store small/light stuff there to speed up the work.
  13. We've all had this a few times I'm sure, and it's very frustrating when you feel like you've done nothing differently from a successful variant. I can actually see what looks like a strut from the left booster to the main stack. That still leaves a few of the issues pointed out above: lack of fins at the base, the timing (and severity) of the turn, and the possibility that the tanks are emptying from the top down. Definitely adding a few fins should help a lot. Once they are fitted, I would suggest starting the turn very early and then using prograde SAS. If the top tanks are emptying first, invert the priorities. (And yes, the boosters really do look like massive overkill )
  14. Yeah, I can't find a way to directly grant them experience with Alt-F12 but I can of course cheat them to a solar orbit and weirdly enough, that does the trick in terms of getting them the "orbit around The Sun" experience (once I cheat them back to Kerbin). Perhaps it's something about my transfer orbit to Eve that it doesn't like... Unless I can find a way of reproducing this issue, I'm not sure there's any value in reporting it as a bug. I have however installed a copy of 1.10.1 now, so I can at least attempt side-by-side tests.
  15. Ah, this reminds me of a painful RAM-related story from many years ago. Must have been the late 90s, and I was pretty cross to learn that a colleague had managed to convince a department manager to spend £10k on a 128 MB memory upgrade, to double the RAM in his favourite IBM RS/6000 workstation. It was annoying for a few reasons, but mainly because I had just spent the previous few months successfully demonstrating that Linux-based PC workstations ran all of our codes faster than the workstation in question, and the total cost of the PCs I was using at the time was around £5k with 512 MB installed. Facepalm time. Meanwhile, my PC now has 16 GB of RAM, and even though it has some left over when KSP hits 8 GB or so, I still need to restart the game at or before that point cos it just crawls (not thrashing, just damn slow). I only have KAC installed, along with BG and MH, so I guess this is just how it is.
  16. How far away do you have to be to trigger the issue? I've just been doing EVA construction on what I consider to be a large ship - almost 47 metres long - with the root part up at the front, and I'm able to glide along it and tweak parts right to the other end.
  17. Yeah, I have found that the OrbitalConstructionContract has similar issues - was offered an Eve "add a part" contract with 1y218d until expiry. (I took it anyway, but needed a LOT of dv to get there in time!) This is pretty freaky and players could be forgiven for being caught out by it, because even the "rescue a Kerbal from LKO" contracts tend to have 5 year deadlines Meanwhile, I've noticed another bug today and am not sure how new it is: I sent some Kerbals to Eve with a research lab on the ship and after arrival I levelled them up, only to find that they didn't reach the expected level. I had intended for them to reach 4 stars: Kerbin orbit, orbit around The Sun, flight at Eve (dipped into upper atmosphere) and a flag on Gilly. However, they were only listed as "fly-by" of The Sun. This wasn't (as I first suspected) a bug in the research lab - I cheated them back to Kerbin and recovered them and they still had just the fly-by listed for the sun. I reckon this bug wasn't present in the past because a few of my older Kerbals already have "orbit" around the sun in their achievements. I even double-checked what the situation indicator was while they were still in deep space on the way to Eve and it showed them as "ORBITING" in The Sun's SOI. Does anyone have a clue if there's a workaround for this, or know if it's a fresh issue in 1.11? I plan to report if it isn't a known thing (googling for it has turned up nothing so far).
  18. But (a) the edit timestamp is before your post and (b) the links are literally in the text you quoted in your post Unless the forum software is behaving really weirdly, your post would not be modified by someone updating their own post. I absolutely agree that there's only one right way to report bugs - on the tracker - and I wasn't seeing much grousing. Back on topic: can anyone confirm that the "stuck to the ground" thing (for Kerbals and sort-of for ships too) is new behaviour as of 1.11.0? I don't (yet) have an old version installed so I can't double-check; I'm all but certain it's new for the Kerbals but not so sure about the ships. (Is it "the done thing" to have an old version on standby?) I have spotted a couple of other minor niggles which may be new bugs and I will get around to reporting them shortly (I guess I'll hunt through the tracker first to see if they are long-standing issues).
  19. This request confuses me. The text you quoted from @Rakete actually contains links to 4 already-reported bugs on the tracker - perhaps you were in an hurry and didn't notice the links?
  20. I've just observed precisely this behaviour while testing conversion rates with 1/2/3 recipes running (i.e. a no-engineer 2-recipe conversion is causing overheating when it seems like it shouldn't). Did you manage to look into the bug?
  21. Well, I'm still seeing sliding too I wouldn't call either part of what I've observed particularly immersion-breaking but I'd be a bit concerned that whatever's going on under the hood (if they are linked) may have uglier consequences somewhere else.
  22. Has anyone else noticed that stuff seems to get kinda stuck to the ground with this patch? At first, I noticed that Kerbals didn't lift off immediately with EVA thrust, even on Minmus - it would take a good fraction of a second for them to leave the ground (and a waste of EVA propellant). A tiny jump into the air beforehand speeds things up a lot, so I've been doing that for a few days. Today I noticed that a craft I was testing on the pad at KSC didn't lift off its LT-2 struts in a "normal" (i.e. physical!) fashion when the damping was set to maximum. Instead of what I expected, which was that the feet would leave the ground while the legs were still compressed, the craft slowly lifted with the feet stuck down until the legs looked like they were fully extended, and then suddenly the craft "unstuck" and the acceleration leapt up (on the accelerometer reading) to what it should have been. The two observations may be unrelated but I've not noticed either behaviour prior to 1.11...
  23. Q2: as @dok_377 already said, no. But, if I'm understanding what you want to do, a way to make it rather closer to a "yes" would be to bring along a couple of docking ports (or a Klaw) and stick them onto both (or one) craft and then stick 'em together after exiting the construction mode. A few people have been saying this and I'm really confused about what might be different for them. My existing (long-standing) flights haven't been bitten by this issue - all of them still have their chutes and jetpacks.
  24. I'm seeing some slightly funky game mechanics right now, which may be "normal" but it's new and odd to me so I'll ask if it's the expected behaviour... I bought Breaking Ground (and MH) a couple of weeks ago. However, I hadn't managed to get around to trying surface-deployed science experiments until after 1.11 came out... When I started to try it in the last day or so, the weird thing that I have come across is that my Kerbals can't pick up the experiments if I have the chute and jetpack equipped; removing just the jetpack allows some things to be picked up but even the chute has to be taken off to fit some of the other pieces of kit into inventory. I've been literally having to walk my Kerbals up to the base of the rocket, take off and store their chute and backpack, and then pick up the base station, solar panels, experiments etc., deploy them from the Kerbal's inventory, and then pick up the jetpack again to fly back to the cabin (I don't normally bother with ladders ) Is this really how it's meant to be (and I guess has been ever since BG landed), or did 1.11 introduce some accidental side-effects that mean you can't pick up and deploy experiments with chute+jetpack equipped?
  25. I just tested it and it really does give a higher dv (as well as displaying it). It's not that surprising though - might be a bit of a pig to include the mass of Kerbals on ladders, no?
  • Create New...