Gavin786

I also have just come up against this, used Kals for a while, and would think this would be a basic feature that was there. I am SURE I have manged to make this work with a design I have done in the past(prop right at start of breaking ground), but dont remember how I did it. Maybe I am mis remembering. I just want the sequence to revert back to the start after I play it, so I can use the same action group to play it once again. Very surprised this is not in there as an option from day 0. Anyway this is definitely needed. An auto-reset sequencing option. And/or a set sequence to 0 or set sequence to 100.

There is a minor(or major I guess if your design depends upon it) bug introduced to 1.10 for animation controllers and (I tested anyway) the telecoping hydraulic part such as "1P4 Telescoping Hydraulic Cylinder". When an animation using the part first runs, it immediately jumps to the zero position. This happens only in the very first time an animation controller uses the part, after that it works fine. I have checked on previous designs that worked perfectly, and they now are exhibiting this behaviour; initially I thought it was just a bug in my craft design, which I tried to fix(for a long time), then loaded previous design which was known good and it was happening there too, which is why I think it is a bug in 1.10 not in my design. I use these cylinders for retractable landing gear, so its unsightly but its not critical for this use case; I can envision many cases where this bug could wreck someone's craft though, especially if there is a complex design with many moving parts connected with struts, etc, of which there are a few(amazing) designs out there like that. It only affects the very first time the cylinders are animated. After that they work perfectly. I have not checked if this bug affects other robotic parts, but my money would be on that it does. I will create a video/investigate more if this is not enough to recreate; I have not eliminated all the variables, for example my animation(for landing gear) needs to unlock the cylinders first, then re-lock them at end of animation; could be the locking the cylinders that is triggering it, I have not tested/isolated it yet. It also might be that it is somehow jumping to the end of the animation first, then to the start, as the cylinders are fully retracted at the end of the animation. Gavin786

Finding same thing, Trajectories Icon is gone from Toolbar in flight, and I cant see the Trajectory line anywhere. Usually I have the trajectory on.

Glad to see im not the only one hanging around going in circles watching the clock waiting for this update to arrive. Reminds me of xmas as a kid. LOL.

PLEASE, SQUAD: Say "we fixed the robotic parts symmetry bug in 1.10!" Seriously makes so many robotic designs unusable now, dont know why there is not a massive outcry from ppl who use the breaking ground system seriously. To recreate(yet again): Use any base part. Use MM symmetry. Put any robotic part on in symmetry. Restrict the angles to any angle not around 0 (0-90) for example. Change "target angle". Seems to work fine in editor. Launch the ship. Change "target angle" on runway. 1 side never moves no matter what you do. Affects all parts I think, but def the rotator servos. Only affects newly created designs(one reason there is no outcry). Makes building pretty much anything impossible. *I have NOT been able to find a full bugfix/changelog/patch notes even though I have now looked several places, if this is already indicated as fixed, its not im lazy, just could not find!

Corporate people cant understand this, but good things cant really come from bad energy like that. A bad seed cant sprout a good tree. All that bad feeling there, and terrible behaviour. IF it is true, and of course we are hearing one side of this only. My gut tells me that Star Theory is the victim here, largely innocent, though that is an opinion/feeling. What they dont understand is that Kerbal is a community and a labour of love by a lot of people, not just the devs. The designs, the energy, the sharing, the modders especially. And if they are throwing greed and poison into that mix, it will poison it. Money is more important than ethics for T2, that is clear. Most corporations these days seem to me like they want to see a boot crushing down on a human face, whether that is in China for anyone who criticizes the CCP or here where anyone falls foul of the SJW outrage brigade. Foot to the face for everyone. And I am really horrified about how things are turning out in this world, as an 80s kid, I watched RoboCop and other dystopian movies, and this world is a WORSE one than what we ever imagined. At least in the world of RoboCop you could still have an opinion. At least in the world of RoboCop you could see the face of someone who was going to take your life/freedom/livelihood. At least in the world of RoboCop you were allowed to fight back. I digress... I strongly suspect T2 will destroy the franchise by making attempts from the start to monetize the mod system, and put the hard work of modders to work making money for their share holders. There were already T&C changes last year that basically to use KSP you had to agree that any mod became T2 property. This is probably not legally enforceable, but truth is no small company or individual can fight and win a court case vs big conglomerate, the stakes are not equal. If smalltime loses the case, they lose everything, corporate loses it, just washes off them. Should be some justice and equal stakes in these cases, execs need to lose personally I think. Anyway, I am really unhappy and quite horrified with what I saw T2 do to Star Theory. I really fear for KSP2 because of it. I think it is critical that SQUAD keeps on developing KSP1 and as a community we continue to throw our weight behind SQUAD. And I really truly hope SQUAD makes at least 1 more paid DLC for KSP1. I would buy it just to keep the lights on at SQUAD even if it was not that great. Proper buoyancy model and airships/subs would do the trick for me, $15 DLC and easy enough to make quickly. Have some cool things under the sea and some cool clouds on Kerbin and other Atmo planets. Add to that make the outer planets mod stock + make sure some exo seas. Would be well worth it, and I would love to see it. Anyway that is my 2 cents, take it or leave it... Lots of love to the KSP community, build on brothers. Gavin786

Do share.

B2 Spirit Stealth. F117 Night hawk. Other aerodynamically unstable designs cant be made in KSP? Why? There is no proper way to create avionics control software. Would be absolutely amazing if there was a bit more control and real avionics could be programmed. In order for these craft to maintain stable flight, there needs to be feedback and control surfaces actuated automatically to compensate for lack of yaw stability. We know its possible as real planes do it. Even just variables/conditionals in the animation system would enable everything to be able to be created, and would be a massive step. Of course we need proper gyroscopic and AOA sensors also. There are just so many super-cool designs like true flying wings that could be made with proper feedback/loops/control. And it does not stop there, we are talking a whole new class of designs I am sure the clever people who play this game could then make. Ideally a scripting language to control avionics would be amazing. Does not even need to be that advanced, just the basic building blocks and the community can create all the libraries needed. I really hope this does get done, I know SQUAD are afraid of making features that are unusable by a section of the community, in this case, just a little bit extra to make vehicles turing-complete would be massive for a lot of advanced designs. I think this is an area where the boundaries can be pushed, even though it is likely to exclude features from certain players, which SQUAD have assiduously avoided thus far, it has to be worth it to allow the bar to be pushed. And mods are no substitute. Anyway, I can wish. Gavin786

Just found this issue in the bug tracker : https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/25068 Looks like same(or almost same) issue. G

I did find another solution to the problem : edit the craft file, and make these changes : EDIT: There does seem to be a workaround to this if you edit the craft file. Change the ModuleRoboticRotationServo section and mirrorRotation from True to False, and inverted from False to True. Parts then work correctly in the editor also. Make sure you choose the right robotic part if you do this, editing craft files is not for beginners.MODULE { name = ModuleRoboticRotationServo isEnabled = True softMinMaxAngles = (0, 90) allowFullRotation = False targetAngle = 0 inverted = False <- Change from True to False mirrorRotation = True <- Change from False to True traverseVelocity = 90 hingeDamping = 100 previousTargetAngle = 0 servoIsLocked = False servoIsMotorized = True jointParentRotation = 0,0,0,1 servoMotorIsEngaged = True launchPosition = 0 servoMotorSize = 100 servoMotorLimit = 100 lockPartOnPowerLoss = True servoTransformPosition = 0,2.2382096E-15,1.36598084E-08 servoTransformRotation = 0,0,0,1 useMultipleDragCubes = False stagingEnabled = True There are probs with this, that if ever the servo needs to be moved and placed again, the bug will re-appear. There are also problems with attached parts to the servo jumping around after re placing the servo. IF it is left alone after placement, should work tho. Even with this, it is a serious pain in the ass, and for anything serious that needs more complex symmetry(like pretty much all of my designs), can pretty much forget it, need to go down to previous version(which is prob my best bet), or wait till SQUAD fixes it(which I *HOPE* they will, the debacle of KSP2 notwithstanding). Had a swing-wing variable geometry space plane been playing with for a while and going to put my new plane making skills to, looks like that is on hold now. It is just too frustrating making each wing out of symmetry + there is some kind of imbalance somewhere and seriously hard to hunt down even with RCS build aid. Was also going to make an ornithopter. No ornithopter for me now I guess :-( Please fix it SQUAD, pretty please with sugar! Kerbals are counting on you! And there is still the mystery of why older designs work. I have scoured the CRAFT files now, for a long time and can see absolutely nothing that might indicate a relevant change between versions, except maybe the meta header? I can keep hunting it down, but prob would need the working + non-working versions installed simultaneously, so I can find the change that makes the difference. Probably something very subtle somewhere. Would be *MUCH* better if its just fixed in 1.9.2. Gavin786

Thank you man, if that workaround works, its gonna save me so much. I suspect it will. Maybe the reason my 1.8.1 designs worked, as they ARE symmetric around the 0.0. I have been crawling round the craft files checking for differences between the two versions and could not find anything. This looks like the right solution/work around.

Rotation Servo Bug, affects newly designed craft. I was watching a YouTuber last night, and he was experiencing this bug, so I loaded KSP and can confirm it is a bug, it is newly introduced after 1.8.1. Steps to reproduce are as follows. This is a significant bug, and makes many robotic designs unusable, I am surprised there is not more of an outcry about this. Perhaps because designs before 1.9.1 still work ? Video of YouTuber experiencing the bug : Bug is repeatable. Steps : 1. Create a parent part, example MK2 Rocket Fuel Fuselage + legs and whatever to create the test platform. Remember to put electric power on it for the servo tests. 2. Choose Mirror Symmetry MM 3. Place a Rotation Servo M-12 onto the ship. There should be 2 due to the mirroring. 4. Right click, and Set "Allow Full Rotation" to "Disabled" 5. Change Angle limits to 0, 90 6. Test the craft in editor by changing the "Target Angle". Notice that it works correctly. Both Rotation Servo M-12 should move together when the target angle is changed. This step is to test that the design is set up correctly. 7. Launch the craft. 8. On the runway, change the "Target Angle". Only one will move, the other is stationary. It cannot be moved regardless of "Target Angle" placement. This is a bug. Again, it is a VERY annoying bug, and basically makes anything other than simple designs unworkable. Please fix this SQUAD. You guys are champs, thank you so much for maintaining KSP even tho v2 might come out one day. Gavin786 EDIT: There does seem to be a workaround to this if you edit the craft file. Change the ModuleRoboticRotationServo section and mirrorRotation from True to False, and inverted from False to True. Parts then work correctly in the editor also. Make sure you choose the right robotic part if you do this, editing craft files is not for beginners. MODULE { name = ModuleRoboticRotationServo isEnabled = True softMinMaxAngles = (0, 90) allowFullRotation = False targetAngle = 0 inverted = False <- Change from True to False mirrorRotation = True <- Change from False to True traverseVelocity = 90 hingeDamping = 100 previousTargetAngle = 0 servoIsLocked = False servoIsMotorized = True jointParentRotation = 0,0,0,1 servoMotorIsEngaged = True launchPosition = 0 servoMotorSize = 100 servoMotorLimit = 100 lockPartOnPowerLoss = True servoTransformPosition = 0,2.2382096E-15,1.36598084E-08 servoTransformRotation = 0,0,0,1 useMultipleDragCubes = False stagingEnabled = True EDIT: Another work around is to set allow full rotation to "true" and to use an animation controller to control the movement of the servo. This is actually I think the best of bad options right now, the above work around has too many problems with it, namely the editor keeps reverting these changes under various conditions. NOTE TO MODS: There is a very similar thread, active now. I created this new thread, as I am convinced there are 2 different bugs that create a similar effect, and they are being amalgamated in the other thread. The bug with the autostruts is NOT the same as this bug.

Confirm that there is a bug with rotation servos. Was about to come on here and make a similar post to OP. Bug is repeatable. Steps : 1. On any surface, place a rotation servo with Mirror Symmetry. 2. Change the servo from "full rotation" to a restricted rotation(0,90) for example. 3. Run the design. 4. Change "target angle" on the ship. One of the servos will not turn its full rotation(or not at all). Can confirm designs built/updated on 1.8.1 still work, and symmetry works as intended. New robotic designs that require symmetry can no longer be built. Gavin786 EDIT: I can see ppl are confusing this bug with the autostrut bug, they are NOT the same bug, two separate bugs, so I am going to make a new post now.

Reading thru this, what does alpha-zero mean?

Just want to say what an amazing mod this is. I dont know how anyone can design atmospheric aircraft without this, the curves show so many things about the flight envelope it would be such a pain(and inconsistent) to find out by trial-and-error. Maybe it is just that people dont understand this mod and why its useful? That their aircraft can maybe perform a lot better/differently if they use a different ascent profile, what the ceiling will be, what the top speed will be. Basially this mod shows : HOW AN AIRCRAFT AUGHT TO BE FLOWN TO GET THE MOST OUT OF IT. If folks understood that, I would bet it would be a massively more popular mod. And there are many ways to fly, and most people are guessing or never reaching their aircraft's potential. Use this mod, then you will with 100% consistency. Amazing, critical information. For me this is a mission-critical mod, and I sincerely thank you for creating and updating it. Gavin786

Totally dont agree with this. I think companies that focus on 1 product only make a much better job of it than companies with a bigger portfolio. I play Elite and I loathe how FDev treats the game, money I spend on cosmetics I am sure now just gets used to fund their other developments. Compare and contrast to Eve Online and CCL(?) who make it, its their only IP and total focus, how much better the attitude/interaction is there. I think KSP2 is likely gonna be a big cock-up, not as good, and that is why they are still doing KSP1, certainly says the publisher does not have much faith in them that they are still spending money on KSP1.

Fair enough, even if you are right, they need money to keep the lights on and keep ppl paid. Even if its a crappy DLC, I think long-term players who love the game will be happy to pay, just to keep that happening. Doest need to be amazing, PPL understand I think, and do want SQUAD to keep interested/working on KSP. I would say just the amazing improvements to the game with the free updates in the last year are worth £15 or whatever the DLC will be worth, you need to understand that is also what you are paying for, even though you get it for free, its not free to create all these updates.

Next Paid DLC? Anything coming this year? Would really like to support continued development of KSP1, even after KSP2, I dont see it replacing KSP1, given all the mod support, etc, and just my spider-sense about the world of programming, got the feeling the reach exceeds the grasp with what they want to do with KSP2. So any word on this? Was around this time last year that breaking ground came out. Cheers for anyone who chimes in. Would defo support SQUAD with anything they want to bring out, even if its submarines or floating airships or whatever, does not need to be as major as breaking ground. Gavin786

Lisias also made a good point, and I should add it to my chime-in. KSP version should be the same for all participants so the craft are behaving the same way/same rules, cant have a craft winning competition on 1.7 and not working on 1.8. Incidentally a lot of 1.7 craft I built broke on 1.8 robotic system. I found that "lock on power loss" is a big culprit and should be set from default of True to False. Gavin786

This sounds like a great competition and a good test of aircraft building skills. Based upon what I have read so far I have a few points regarding competition rules etc. Maybe it is too late in the day for this as entries have already been made, but comments are : 1. Proof should be a video of circumnavigation and save scumming aught not be allowed. Pictures alone are not sufficient, cheaters are unfortunately common, though in the (generally genuinely wonderful) KSP community they are less common, they may still exist, and question will always be in people's mind otherwise. 2. As a suggestion : A waypoint at opposite end of Kerbin should be passed within 1km, this is proof of circumnaviagation and deviation from a great circle just adds time then. Otherwise small deviations from equator can remove seconds(minutes?) from time. 2.1 Deviation could vary from the 1km if it is agreed due to the difficult of controlling hypersonic craft. Maybe 10km? Did the maths, its not going to make any meaningful difference a few degrees above or below equator, especially for aircraft travelling at hypersonic speed, UNLESS the competition comes down to seconds(which I doubt). About 5 degrees from equator should make about 10s difference or so at hypersonic speeds. HOWEVER: Variation beyond this gives a steep difference(3770 * ( 1.0 - cos( abs(latitude) ) ) ). 3. Are there no standard rules for competitions like these? I would just assume save scumming/deviation from stock parts would be part of a standard set of rules ? 4. Deviation from stock by tweakscale(or other mods that alter the fundamental properties of parts) aught not be allowed. Resizing a part alters the drag cube and makes a big difference, to the point it is an unfair advantage over pure stock. Should be stock parts only with cosmetics being only allowed (part altering) mods. 4.1 I have never explored tweakscale myself, so if the crafts it creates are "pure stock" which I define as a craft file that can be loaded/run and works the same fundamental way in a pure stock ksp, then I may revisit my ideas on this point 4. I dont know the mod. Seems like this is something that aught not be allowed though. 5. This is about the aircraft not the pilot so autopilots such as kOS/Mechjeb etc should be encouraged as they allow a repeatable flight profile. This is an "optional" of course but it is nice to load/learn from others' designs. I have recently learned the best players of this game make flight manuals for all their "completed" craft, would be nice to submit manual/flight instructions as part of craft submission(optional only just a nice thing/idea). Maybe I am just getting carried away as usual. My 2 cents. I am considering entering this competition. Gavin786

So I see that KSP1 is still being very actively maintained with new features/improvements coming out all the time. Which is amazing. However it also begs the question: Why? Is KSP1 still going to be a thing/actively developed even after KSP2 is released, that is they are both undergoing development and sale simultaneously? Second question about KSP2 if anyone knows is that are models designed in KSP1 going to be compatible with KSP2? That would be a big barrier, and is for me currently, as I am thinking what is the point if KSP2 is right around the corner and my designs wont work anymore. Thank you all! Gavin786

So I had some pretty strong opinions saying this type of feature was not needed, that pilot skill etc etc could compensate for it. After having created quite a lot of aircraft now especially with new breaking ground features I just want to say - I was wrong. Having some kind of feature where the motion vectors of the craft could be fed to user-programmable software system that can then control the actuators would be super useful and essential to make some designs flyable. Especially on my dual car there are loads of things that it just cant do that it would be able to if i could program the actuators in response to vector/input. And I am sat wishing just such a feature or mod that this thread talks about does in fact exist. Anyway, just saying having some proper fly-by-wire in stock would be wonderful, if not a mod would def be great. A lot more craft types could be made and existing ones could fly more stably or have different performance characteristics. And player skill and craft knowledge can never compensate for a lot of situations where a fly-by-wire system would be needed. So I have rethought things and changed my mind by 180 degrees from above, only fair to OP and others I say so. Gavin786

Amazing Update, and so many features, long, long overdue. We had to use mods Precise Editor and Editor Extensions Deluxe to do these things which aught to have been in stock for a very long time(break symmetry + enter numeric values). Thank you, SQUAD, great update!

Welcome Humans, Today I present 2 jet-powered hovercars which are controlled with gimballed engines. First uses a single engine block set. Second uses dual. Both use jets with gimballed blocks and have a unique(so far as I am aware) flying profile. There is a difference between the single and dual models in how vertical thrust is regulated. In single engine one we have to lower the TWR which is dangerous because bringing it back up again is slow process in a jet engine. We tried to solve this problem in dual engine version by vectoring the engines so they dont need to be spooled down. Would be great the day SQUAD finally gives us some scripting or fine-grained control over things, highly anticipated. Would be of massive benefit on this vehicle. I have created some videos and some screen shots. If any human knows an easy way to make videos appear smaller in size on these posts or side-by-side etc a PM would be appreciated. Single Engine Block : Dual Engine Block : and the downloads may be found at : Single block : https://kerbalx.com/gavin786/HoverCarSingle-export Dual block : https://kerbalx.com/gavin786/HoverCarDual2-export I have already explained how to create gimbaled engine blocks in a previous post. Gavin786

I already amended the above and did a video to test it out. Well within the margin of error and not a big change as one would expect so I assume you are correct.