KSP Loading... Preview: 1.7.3 Same Vessel Interactions

[St4rdust]

We are already working on 1.7.3, an upcoming patch focused on ironing out the last details of both 1.7 and the Breaking Ground Expansion. Within this patch, you will not only find bug fixes but a few new features we have selected based on your feedback as well as some other elements we thought could improve the overall game experience. Such an example is “Same Vessel Interaction”: This advanced option will allow parts from the same vessel to collide with each other, so you will need to ensure that the selected parts don't clip each other. This option will have to be turned on per part, while the default will remain off. 

We are already working on 1.7.3, an upcoming patch focused on the last details of both 1.7 and the Breaking Ground Expansion. Within this patch, you will not only find bug fixes but a few new features we have selected based on your feedback as well as some other elements. pic.twitter.com/IKghC1E9eq

— Kerbal Space Program (@KerbalSpaceP) June 19, 2019

 

[adsii1970]

hey, now we can really have Kerbal-powered vehicles!

 

[shdwlrd]

1 minute ago, adsii1970 said:

hey, now we can really have Kerbal-powered vehicles!

 

Like Kerbal hamster wheels? I'm all for that.

[adsii1970]

2 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

Like Kerbal hamster wheels? I'm all for that.

Exactly what I was thinking...  

[Geonovast]

This... changes everything.

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

I think that it would be nice if control surface and air-brake deployment could be controlled by the controller and action groups and if the field being controlled was not grouped with another instance of it with symmetry (each part would have its own and they would not be grouped with symmetry, which could be achieved by giving the option to disable symmetry for it), because I was trying to sequence the deployment of @blackheart612's 2-slot flaps from Airplane Plus, but the right bottom flap and left top flap were grouped together even though I was hoping to get only the bottom ones to deploy.

[fulgur]

The first thing I thought of was space doors. The second was KSS Intrepid.

EDIT: J-j-just Jim likes one of my posts! One of my posts!

EDIT EDIT: And adsii1970 too!

Edited June 24, 2019 by fulgur

[shdwlrd]

I can see some modder making actual gear parts to make some sort of Kerbalized transmission. 

[Vanamonde]

So Jeb is trying the Conan the Barbarian workout? 

[Barzon]

Will there be intervessel docking aswell? 

[JPLRepo]

Just now, Barzon Kerman said:

Will there be intervessel docking aswell? 

always has been.

[Majorjim!]

Any chance of making the  hinges and servos stiffer?

[StrandedonEarth]

What we really need with all these new action axis groups is in-flight access to the action groups. Preferably to be able to edit them, but at least to remember what does what. Action button assignments could at least be listed in the PAW

[schwank]

This should help with the weak joints and resulting floppy crafts that clipped through.

[Barzon]

15 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

always has been.

Really? So if, for example, you were doing a high fidelity replication of the SpaceX Cargo Dragon berthing, with a robotic arm, you wouldnt need to detach the arm for the capsule to dock to the docking port?

[Ultimate Steve]

Hmm... This will be one step towards making robotic arms more viable. The other two steps would be fixing the associated docking glitches and allowing us to reset docking ports with right click.

[Superfluous J]

29 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:

always has been.

I gave up with a version of my asteroid plane because it wouldn't dock with itself. Wouldn't even get the magnetism.

17 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Action button assignments could at least be listed in the PAW

Oh dear not there. At least, not as a new line. Maybe:

Extend (AG 3)

Or something?

Edited June 19, 2019 by 5thHorseman

[Just Jim]

1 hour ago, fulgur said:

The first thing I thought of was space doors. The second was KSS Intrepid.

EDIT: J-j-just Jim likes one of my posts! One of my posts!

hehe, i like everyone, and it's a cool idea

Edited June 19, 2019 by Just Jim

[MechBFP]

Rotor + RPM increasing gear configuration past 500 RPM = ???

(Probably explosions)

Edited June 19, 2019 by MechBFP

[Superfluous J]

4 minutes ago, MechBFP said:

Rotor + RPM increasing gear configuration past 500 RPM = ???

(Probably explosions)

From my understanding of the way Unity works, the rotor you are trying to spin faster than max rpm will just spin at max rpm.

From my experience with KSP, yes there will be explosions.

[Nightside]

1 hour ago, Barzon Kerman said:

Really? So if, for example, you were doing a high fidelity replication of the SpaceX Cargo Dragon berthing, with a robotic arm, you wouldnt need to detach the arm for the capsule to dock to the docking port?

Did you mean intravessel? Currently, Once the robo arm grabs the pod Ksp considers it all one vessel and disables collisions.

[Bubbadevlin]

Ooo.. so many new possibilities are opened through this...

Not to mention it should be even able to help structural rigidity for lots of stuff

[theJesuit]

Hopefully Kopernicus will wait for this release.  Thanks for the heads up!

Peace.

[FleshJeb]

This has certainly increased MY "structural rigidity".

Absolutely fantastic job, guys.

[Majorjim!]

Bwill it be possible to have servos and hinges collide with other parts? That would be very nice indeed.