The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[John FX]

Stoked for stock 64 bit, now it is just the wait for the mods to be updated.

I`m not holding my breath for RO although when it drops I`ll have to remember to breathe...

might take a break now until more mods come out, I have sent off my Pluto probes and finished the RP-0 tree, real life could do with some attention.

[Basto]

I played a little in the prerelease but didn't want to start a campaign until release came out.  Started my new campaign last night and had a blast. Also did not run into a single issue. I suspect many of the problems (granted not all) are coming from mods. 

[ndiver]

2 hours ago, Atlas2342 said:

Umm guys, the navball....did it get bigger or am I just lacking sleep. It seems like its distracting for me...

It got bigger, also the upper bar. And if you downscale the UI size in the Settings, the buttons on left and right get smaller too (too small to be easily readable)

Edited April 20, 2016 by ndiver

[sarbian]

2 hours ago, Atlas2342 said:

Umm guys, the navball....did it get bigger or am I just lacking sleep. It seems like its distracting for me...

 

3 minutes ago, ndiver said:

It got bigger, also the upper bar. And if you downscale the UI size in the Settings, the buttons on left and right get smaller too (too small to be easily readable)

See the last link in my signature

[p1t1o]

Why is it so hard to produce a mathematically flat surface? Or is it more to do with weird craft-surface interactions?

[Atlas2342]

4 minutes ago, sarbian said:

 

See the last link in my signature

Me needs this...

[ndiver]

7 minutes ago, sarbian said:

See the last link in my signature

Thanks, I share, some friends will be happy ;-)

[A_name]

10 hours ago, Terensky said:

Arsonide explained somewhere that the landing legs behave as wheels (indeed they are) and this behaviour is to be expected. So it's not considered a bug (as now). So I guess it's also normal, though in my opinion not desiderable, that vessels on landing legs slide on slopes, even if I must admit that in the latest release the legs slide way less than before, usually coming to a stop after a short while. It's still possible though that a kerbal on EVA touching one will be launched in air (I did try with the LT-2 on the Mun, don't know if LT-1 and LT-05 have the same problem). And it's also possible to turn a landed vessel on legs easily using SAS with Q and E key: if I remember correctly this was not easy to do in 1.05.

Edit:

Found the relevant thread:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/137333-1228-lt-2-landing-strut-on-the-mun/

They actually mention the sliding in the readme.

4 hours ago, Warpedone said:

Very excited about 1.1 but it's finally overwhelmed the memory on my asthmatic old PC... 

I'm used to the game crashing every half an hour with a dozen interplanetary missions out there after a few game years, but now it's happening by launch 3!

A bit disappointing with all the talk of the new platform being less resource hungry but that's life, time to start saving for a new machine

 

Maybe obvious but are you sure you're on the x64 version? I downloaded from the KSP store and found I had to manually open the x64 exe.

[Deddly]

It is flat, but becaude of the curve of Kerbin underneath the perfectly flat runway, you actually roll towards the middle. To prevent that happening, the runway should actually be ever so slightly curved to match the planet.

[Curveball Anders]

20 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Why is it so hard to produce a mathematically flat surface? Or is it more to do with weird craft-surface interactions?

You mentioned the scary word your self.

Please define a mathematically flat surface ...

I'm an engineer, if it looks flat enough it's flat, but for a mathematician ...

(My sons are sysdevs, they have told me that coding is math, but I'm in denial).

[p1t1o]

9 minutes ago, Deddly said:

It is flat, but becaude of the curve of Kerbin underneath the perfectly flat runway, you actually roll towards the middle. To prevent that happening, the runway should actually be ever so slightly curved to match the planet.

Well, same question, why is it so hard to produce an appropriately curved surface so that it is flat in a practical sense?

[regex]

3 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Well, same question, why is it so hard to produce an appropriately curved surface so that it is flat in a practical sense?

Because Kerbin is too small.  Gravity, man.  Gravity.

[p1t1o]

7 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

You mentioned the scary word your self.

Please define a mathematically flat surface ...

I'm an engineer, if it looks flat enough it's flat, but for a mathematician ...

(My sons are sysdevs, they have told me that coding is math, but I'm in denial).

I did think I'd catch more flack for that  yeah I know the scary word is not often practical in the real world, but I figured if it was possible anywhere, it'd be possible inside a software world where everything is mathematically defined...

4 minutes ago, regex said:

Because Kerbin is too small.  Gravity, man.  Gravity.

But you don't roll around on "flat" bits of terrain?

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

Just now, p1t1o said:

I did think I'd catch more flack for that  yeah I know the scary word is not often practical in the real world, but I figured if it was possible anywhere, it'd be possible inside a software world where everything is mathematically defined...

But you don't roll around on "flat" bits of terrain?

It's kinda counterintuitive. The "flat" terrain is curved to Kerbin's curve. Ironically, this makes them flatter than the runway, which is actually flat.

[p1t1o]

Just now, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

It's kinda counterintuitive. The "flat" terrain is curved to Kerbin's curve. Ironically, this makes them flatter than the runway, which is actually flat.

Thats the picture Im getting - but if this is the case, why make the runway flat? And not "curved to kerbins curve"?

[Curveball Anders]

2 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Well, same question, why is it so hard to produce an appropriately curved surface so that it is flat in a practical sense?

Because practical and obvious isn't the same.

And more due to the fact that Squad (or actually Harvester) decided to use an existing game engine to deliver something useful in 6 months.

That choice will always come back at bite their behinds, but without that choice there wouldn't been any KSP.

I could have written a better core than Harvester did.

But it would have taken me 10+ years and my employer wouldn't have paid me to do it.

KSP like all other good software is a mish-mash of good intentions, brilliance and random chance.

[p1t1o]

1 minute ago, Curveball Anders said:

Because practical and obvious isn't the same.

And more due to the fact that Squad (or actually Harvester) decided to use an existing game engine to deliver something useful in 6 months.

That choice will always come back at bite their behinds, but without that choice there wouldn't been any KSP.

I could have written a better core than Harvester did.

But it would have taken me 10+ years and my employer wouldn't have paid me to do it.

KSP like all other good software is a mish-mash of good intentions, brilliance and random chance.

So it boils down to "complications in the core code"? I mean thats fair enough, was just wondering

They couldn't just "paint" a runway onto the regular surface?

Oh, this must be why the runway has like those hill at either end!

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

9 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Thats the picture Im getting - but if this is the case, why make the runway flat? And not "curved to kerbins curve"?

Good question. Maybe they'll fix it later, or maybe they tried curving it and it didn't work so they set it aside.

[regex]

12 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

But you don't roll around on "flat" bits of terrain?

Why would you?  They're curved to the planet.  If you had a perfectly, mathematically straight runway stretching some 21 km sitting on a perfectly, gravitationally circular part of Earth it would be tilted slightly downwards at one end and tilted slightly up at the other, relative to take off direction.  Scale that down to Kerbin and you get our current situation.

Edited April 20, 2016 by regex

[Padishar]

The runway also slopes to the right along the whole of its length.  Some more discussion of this from some time ago...

 

[Curveball Anders]

2 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

So it boils down to "complications in the core code"? I mean thats fair enough, was just wondering

They couldn't just "paint" a runway onto the regular surface?

Oh, this must be why the runway has like those hill at either end!

It comes down to a very dark part of a coders, dev, project leads heart.

This sucks, but it would take to much to fix, so we have to allow it to ship.

If you're been there you know it, if you haven't be sure that you will.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

18 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Thats the picture Im getting - but if this is the case, why make the runway flat? And not "curved to kerbins curve"?

Because they made it "mathematically flat"

[captaincza738]

I AM SO HAPPY!!!!!

Now I must wait for BD Armoury and all the mods to update.

[Curveball Anders]

3 minutes ago, I_Killed_Jeb said:

Because they made it "mathematically flat"

I'll use that quote on the pub and many will understand, but then I do have sad friends,

[p1t1o]

3 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

I'll use that quote on the pub and many will understand, but then I do have sad friends,

Around here, we call those "awesome friends"