Devnotes Tuesday: A week after the release!

[NathanKell]

That would be very helpful.

In case it wasn't obviously implied, in my testing of the single-part case, the rate of change was an order of magnitude (or two!) lower in 1.1.2 than in 1.0.5. Which is why I felt comfortable putting my changes in the patch.

[smjjames]

21 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

That would be very helpful.

In case it wasn't obviously implied, in my testing of the single-part case, the rate of change was an order of magnitude (or two!) lower in 1.1.2 than in 1.0.5. Which is why I felt comfortable putting my changes in the patch.

I can't revert anywhere, Steam is refusing to, not even the 'previous stable release' works.

However, what I DO have is a bugtestiing (just in general, meant for mods mostly, no mods in it right now) KSP branchoff that I had set aside which is in 1.1.1, build 1250. Would observations in there work?

Short of finding a download of 1.0.5 somewhere, I can't roll back to it, or anywhere, via Steam.

Wait, I just realized the pre-release is still available in steam, perhaps I can use that?

*after no response several minutes later*

Meh I'll go ahead with it since it's the best available option.

Edited May 18, 2016 by smjjames

[Superfluous J]

44 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

That would be very helpful.

In case it wasn't obviously implied, in my testing of the single-part case, the rate of change was an order of magnitude (or two!) lower in 1.1.2 than in 1.0.5. Which is why I felt comfortable putting my changes in the patch.

I think the problem is that while the rate of change may be lower, the direction is constant in 1.1.2 while it went back and forth in 1.0.5. This is still just my feeling on it but in many hours of play I've not seen those numbers go up ONCE in 1.1.2 while in that above 1.0.5 test they went up to start with.

If anybody wants to watch The Least Interesting Video On The Internet I've uploaded the first of 4 half-hour tests to YouTube. Note, this isn't what you asked for @NathanKell but I wanted to include it as well as the single-part test which I'll upload next.

Sadly "Next" will be about 12 hours from now at best, but with any luck at that time I'll be able to upload all 3 "Next" videos, 1.0.5 single part, 1.1.2 ship, and 1.1.2 single part. And if I have time I'll also include some hard numbers.

Edited May 18, 2016 by 5thHorseman
Added link.

[smjjames]

You know, I'm gonna do the video thing as well.....

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, NathanKell said:

That would be very helpful.

Not the exact method you requested, but I had these from trying to figure out the decay rate (and to make sure I wasn't just seeing things), made in 1.1.2 pure stock:

Rate of decay: 260m of altitude lost over the course of a full orbit, to both Periapsis and Apoapsis; numbers only crept down, never up. The craft was the top stage of a straightforward 1.25m rocket, Mk1 pod with last tank and terrier still attached.

 

[Superfluous J]

As I said I can't post the videos until tomorrow (I'll try to get them all up before 8am Eastern Time, or about 9 hours from now), but here is a quick analysis of what I see with Jeb orbiting at about 80km.

Short/Sweet: The difference is at least 1 if not 2-3 orders of magnitude, but it's worse in 1.1.2, not the other way around.

1.0.5
Raw Time	Pe	PeT	Ap	ApT	Note
15:06	79803	00:01	82649	15:41	At Periapsis
23:29	79733	23:11	82697	07:31	Halfway to Ap
31:10	79781	15:41	82628	00:01	At Apoapsis
39:08	79827	07:31	82561	23:11	Halfway to Pe
46:26	79761	00:01	82670	15:41	At Periapsis
Abs.Change	-42	00:00	21	00:00	One down, one up, no time change

 

1.1.2
Raw Time	Pe	PeT	Ap	ApT	Note
13:25	79661	00:01	80119	15:37	At Periapsis
22:19	79563	22:53	80069	07:16	Halfway to Ap
30:01	79523	15:38	79981	00:01	At Apoapsis
37:46	79481	07:20	79895	22:56	Halfway to Pe
44:38	79402	00:01	79859	15:38	At Periapsis
Abs.Change	-259	00:00	-260	00:01	Both down, 5-10x more than in 1.0.5, yet orbit time stayed the same or went up?

I should probably define my terms

Raw Time is what is in the upper left.
Pe and ap are the number in meters of each.
PeT and ApT are the time to each.
Note is a, well, a note.
Abs.Change is the difference betwen the first and last line - each at periapsis.
 

Edited May 19, 2016 by 5thHorseman
Time weirdness

[NathanKell]

Thanks all! That's very helpful.

I will see what I can do when we get back from vacation (or before, as noted I am bad at vacation) to at least make the direction vary if I can't damp it completely (and note, @taniwha and I _did_ spend seven hours in a google hangouts trying to damp it completely, it's not for lack of trying...)

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

Thanks all! That's very helpful.

I will see what I can do when we get back from vacation (or before, as noted I am bad at vacation) to at least make the direction vary if I can't damp it completely (and note, @taniwha and I _did_ spend seven hours in a google hangouts trying to damp it completely, it's not for lack of trying...)

Just spitballing here, but instead of doing it the way you're doing it now (which I assume is to move the ship in Cartesian space and then apply gravity), would it be possible to instead use the on-rails numbers? Kind of, snap the ship to where it SHOULD be, instead of placing it where some dubious floating point numbers SAY it probably should be near?

This would just be for a vessel not undergoing any acceleration. While burning the current method is fine as it'd be totally hidden (and overpowered) by even the weakest ion engines in most circumstances.

[Jacke]

4 hours ago, smjjames said:

I can't revert anywhere, Steam is refusing to, not even the 'previous stable release' works.

There's an issue with Steam on Windows if you set KSP to "previous" version.  The 64-bit program KSP_x64.exe is for KSP 1.1.2.1280, but as far as I can tell, all other files, including the 32-bit program KSP.exe, is for KSP 1.0.5.1028.

This is what i found from testing on April 30 after KSP 1.1.2 released and today as well.

KSP on Steam under Win 8.1 64-bit for different settings of Beta dropdown

NONE		1.1.2.1260
prerelease	1.1.0.1228
previous	1.0.5.1028 32-bit .exe	1.1.2.1260 64-bit .exe	<- leftover, delete

You should be able to set Steam KSP to Delete Local Content, set Properties Beta to "previous" version, wipe all remaining files in the KSP Steam directory (default "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\SteamApps\common\Kerbal Space Program"), and download KSP 1.0.5.  Just delete its errant file KSP_x64.exe as it will not work properly.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Jacke

[NathanKell]

@5thHorseman that's actually the first thing we considered. How do you plan to deal with rotations and collisions, though?

[smjjames]

@Jacke It's no big deal now though, but thanks.

 

@NathanKell

Save file (zipped it because it saved strangely the first time, sta.sh didn't do that before): http://sta.sh/0duvhcs0kv5

First vid in last pre-release build (1228 I believe): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sHJVYERojU

Second vid, in 1.1.2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI_0eNwa7cw&feature=youtu.be

 

[Superfluous J]

25 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@5thHorseman that's actually the first thing we considered. How do you plan to deal with rotations and collisions, though?

Hey you're the programmer. I'm just the idea guy!

One thought, though, is to deal with them the same way you'd deal with acceleration: Use the current method.

Flowchart/non-code below:

1) Snap the ship to where rails says it should go.
2) Is there a collision, acceleration, or landing event?
2.a) No-> Sweet. All done. Jump to 1) above
2.b) Yes-> Deal with in the off-rails way you do now, then jump to 1) above

This way, so long as you're just cruising along you're perfectly on rails. The moment anything happens, you go off rails, deal with it, and then go right back on rails.

There I just fixed KSP!

(Note: I am fully aware I did no such thing)

(Note 2: Shouldn't you be on vacation?)

EDIT: Regarding rotation, aren't you already doing all this on the COM? Just keep snapping the COM to rails (and don't recalculate what rails should be until a collision or acceleration occurs) and things should all work out just fine. I'm sure of it. Mostly. Well I'm not positive. I could be mistaken. In fact I'm most likely mistaken. No it probably won't work at all.

Edited May 19, 2016 by 5thHorseman

[smjjames]

8 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Hey you're the programmer. I'm just the idea guy!

One thought, though, is to deal with them the same way you'd deal with acceleration: Use the current method.

Flowchart/non-code below:

1) Snap the ship to where rails says it should go.
2) Is there a collision, acceleration, or landing event?
2.a) No-> Sweet. All done. Jump to 1) above
2.b) Yes-> Deal with in the off-rails way you do now, then jump to 1) above

This way, so long as you're just cruising along you're perfectly on rails. The moment anything happens, you go off rails, deal with it, and then go right back on rails.

There I just fixed KSP!

(Note: I am fully aware I did no such thing)

(Note 2: Shouldn't you be on vacation?)

The question one might ask though, is, why did it get worse between the last pre-release build and 1.1.2?

Kerbin seems more affected than Mun or Minmus, but then again, I only did low orbits for Mun and Minmus.

Edit: It has now occured to me that it might have been better to test with the same part for all of the orbits, to at least remove other variables.

Edited May 19, 2016 by smjjames

[NathanKell]

ferram pointed out an error in my math/assumptions, so between that and the above, I do have a lead. Thanks agian.

[Skystorm]

@NathanKell The biggest differences I've noticed regarding orbits between 1.0.x and 1.1.x are the following:

1. Orbital "wobble" vs. "decay":  In 1.0.5 I would see the orbit "wobble" where the AP would go either up or down slowly and the PE would always go the opposite direction.  Periodically AP and PE would reverse their directions always remaining opposite one another, and the orbit would always remain basically the same.  However, in 1.1.2 both the AP and PE seems to always be decaying for the active vessel and eventually cause the vessel to de-orbit.
2. The rate of the decay in 1.1.2 seems larger than the rate of wobble in 1.0.5 but that's just my opinion.  If there is any wobble in 1.1.x then I would have to say I agree with you that wobble in 1.1.x seems greatly reduced now compared to 1.0.x.
3. I have only ever noticed orbital wobble (1.0.x) or decay (1.1.x) for the active vessel in either version and never for a vessel on rails or in time warp.

I recently had a newly built ship (not imported from an older version) in about a 73km circular equatorial orbit around Kerbin.  I left it in a stable orbit and went to watch some TV and within about 30 - 45 minutes I heard the sounds of re-entry heating.  The ship had decayed completely out of orbit and was down to nearly 40km altitude in what would have been no more than 1 - 2 orbits.

The crew survived though; I caught it in time.  I hope this helps.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Skystorm
Had the versions backwards in #3

[Superfluous J]

I don't think these are strictly necessary anymore but for completeness (and because I made them so why not) I've uploaded the other 3 videos to YouTube. Here are links to all 4, or over TWO HOURS of watching map mode in real time!

BORING VIDEO 1: 1.0.5 ship in ~80km orbit experiencing Pe/Ap fluctuations

BORING VIDEO 2: 1.0.5 Jeb in ~80km orbit experiencing Pe/Ap fluctuations

BORING VIDEO 3: 1.1.2 Ship in ~80km orbit experiencing Pe/Ap degradation

BORING VIDEO 4: 1.1.2 Jeb in ~80km orbit experiencing Pe/Ap degradation

[Majorjim!]

On 05/17/2016 at 8:40 PM, maceemiller said:

Some bugs must be a localised problem. Im not having any crashes now or problems with landing legs

The legs/wheels are broken for everyone. Squad knows it, we just have to wait for a fix. Those, I have no issues comments are less than helpful.

[John FX]

I wonder if this is the longest devnote thread so far?

Looking at the 1.1.2 release note, holiday was `a couple of weeks` which might suggest that we get new notes next week.

Edited May 19, 2016 by John FX

[Daveroski]

9 hours ago, NathanKell said:

@5thHorseman that's actually the first thing we considered. How do you plan to deal with rotations and collisions, though?

Rotations on rails too.

Just take the craft off rails when a force acts upon it or another object is within a couple of kilometres.

 

[KerbonautInTraining]

Is anyone going to talk about the fact that all of this was over a drop of less than 0.6km per hour? 

With a responsibly high orbit it would take hours to make any noticable difference. 

[Daveroski]

2 minutes ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Is anyone going to talk about the fact that all of this was over a drop of less than 0.6km per hour? 

With a responsibly high orbit it would take hours to make any noticable difference. 

One very noticeable difference would be being able to read you ap and pe more clearly without it flickering and bouncing around like a mad thing. Manoeuvre nodes would be easier and clearer too.

 

[Apollo13]

I use kData to display the active vessel parameters.  My craft will be in orbit about the Mun or Minmus, and I watch the ApA and PeA drop steadily.  I've also experienced the scenario 5thHorseman describes.

@NathanKell thank you for taking the reins on the orbit bug.  

Edited May 19, 2016 by Apollo13

[smjjames]

1 hour ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Is anyone going to talk about the fact that all of this was over a drop of less than 0.6km per hour? 

With a responsibly high orbit it would take hours to make any noticable difference. 

It's still an unacceptable drop as it's not supposed to happen.

[sarbian]

3 hours ago, Majorjim said:

The legs/wheels are broken for everyone. Squad knows it, we just have to wait for a fix. Those, I have no issues comments are less than helpful.

When are your vacations ? Because your 3 rant post per hour in this thread is kinda getting annoying you know.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, sarbian said:

When are your vacations ? Because your 3 rant post per hour in this thread is kinda getting annoying you know.

Wind your neck in mate, I am free to post what ever I want. I also would not refer to my last few posts as rants. I am venting about a game on a thread about a game on a forum about a game about valid issues with the game. If you find my posts annoying simply ignore them.. Geeze..