Jump to content

Kerbal Space Program 1.11.1 is live!


UomoCapra
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the settings.cfg is from 1.7.3 on being run in 1.11.1 it will make all the Shadow settings be set to 1. 

If the settings.cfg file is missing when KSP is started in 1.11.1 KSP will rebuild a default settings.cfg file with different settings which have the shadow issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok thank for the info !

(I noticed that sometimes the file loses a few keys, in my home it's the camera that loses its settings and I do not know what causes this or that it file cfg and loaded at that time.)

Steph.

edit:

in my case it was a new installation, not an update.

Edited by stephm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2021 at 9:33 PM, Superfluous J said:

I don't have time to peruse in full but let me just say from reading the summary, YAY!

Thanks for the update!

most importanly the root part in eva construction has been fixed along with alot of other things that were driving me insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, chd said:

One thing I have noticed since 1.11.1, which I don't believe happened in 1.11.0, is that now even my very basic probe cores have all the auto-pilot options enabled on the left side of the nav ball.

Now I already had that functionality with them because I have MechJeb installed; maybe this change is really just that the probe core is now smart enough to recognize that capability from Mechjeb and display it?

That's also the only odd thing I noticed so far. All probe cores have all the SAS modes, even the Stayputnik. Hail the almighty probe!

12 hours ago, chd said:

Correction -- actually it looks like all those hold options are only present when warping. Go figure...

For me they are fully functioning, always. On 1.11.0 vessels and on built in 1.11.1 vessels.

I just used the patch from 1.11.0 to 1.11.1 . The save was a complete vanilla, no DLC, no mods, fresh 1.11.0 start.

Edited by Mythos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mythos said:

That's also the only odd thing I noticed so far. All probe cores have all the SAS modes, even the Stayputnik. Hail the almighty probe!

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?

Edited by Neilski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote


 Kerbals can now assist an Engineer in construction to move heavier parts.

But, how... I really needed a battery on a research station (on Minmus). So I sent a lander with the battery in a storage unit. The battery is not very heavy (only 0.02t) but it is very large apparently (doesn't make sense for a battery but ok..)

125L, while a single Kerbal can only carry 40L. I've got 4 kerbals around it, but I can't seem to get the battery out of the storage unit... How?

Edited by Chris_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what. Now my battery has disappeared entirely. What I did is click a kerbal (engineer), then click the container in which the battery is placed, then  drag the battery of the container, and then click the construction icon (while still dragging). This makes the dragged part disappear / vanish completely. This is a bug, and is reproducible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Neilski said:

Has it been reported yet on the tracker?

I haven't, wanted to do some more testing or maybe someone else just knows a fix within the savefile?

4 hours ago, Neilski said:

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...

Doesn't seem to happen this way round on my side. So it's really not urgent.

4 hours ago, Neilski said:

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.

Just started a new career, just standard nomal difficulty. And then I realized it is also the level 0 Kerbal pilot, that has all SAS modes. Scienced me up to the Stayputnik, and again it also has all the SAS modes.

Now downloaded the full 1.11.1 package. Merged no settings and no save. Started new career, Jeb again has all SAS modes. So it's not just the patch.

Tried to disable "part upgrades" in difficulty,  but same behaviour.

Edited by Mythos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2021 at 4:49 PM, Anth12 said:

I put a fix in there

 

Works great, thank you!

 

Some nice fixes in this one, Dev Team. Thank you.  I really appreciate the revamp of the original 2 lights as well.

Edited by klesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rakete said:

Can we please get another bug fix? A 1.11.2 ?

I hope for a 1.11.2 release, but experience taught me to be skeptic about.

If I understood correctly one recent altercation on github, bugs are being selected to be fixed based on "popularity", not severity or even criticality . I.E., if the bugs affects more than 50% (I'm guessing), it's fixed. Otherwise, it is not.

It's, IMHO, a sad compromise with a "middle ground". And the problem I see with this is that the "middle ground" for a bug is not necessarily the "middle ground" for another one!

Let's assume a product with 5 bugs, A, B, C, D and E. Bug A affects 30% of the user base, bug B affects 5%, bugs C, D and E affects 20%.

However, and this is where things get hairy, the set of users being affected by these bugs are not mutually exclusive! Users are being affected by a collection of bugs, not only by one. So, users suffering the Bug B can also be suffering the A, C, D or E too. So, let's imagine the following scenario:

1) Users suffering from A are also being affected by B, C, D or E

2) Some users (obviously not all) being affected by C, D and E also are being affected by B.

3) Approximately half of the users suffering from C, D or E also suffers from the others C, D, E but not necessarily all I.E, CD, CE, DE - with only a few ones suffering all the C, D and E.

How you decide what bug needs to be tackled down? How would you decide what to fix or not? Well, one naive approach would be to fix A, then try to fix C, D and E as time allows and completely ignore bug B - after all, only 5% of the user base is being affected but it.

By time constraints, Bugs A, D and E were fixed - ignoring B and C.. Sounds reasonable? Perhaps, but it's wrong!

People that got A and C will still be liquided off because of C. People suffering from B, so we have at least 25% (5% of B and 20% of C) of the user base less than happy. Since half of users suffering D and E also suffers C, we have 10% + 10% = 20% additional users mad with you. So 25% + 20% = 45%. Almost half of the user base!

The less worst  aftermath would be fixing C, D and E and ignoring A, as A+B = 35% of the user base, way less than the 45% I said before. And if fixing B is easy and/or fast, it should be fixed nevertheless, as it would drop the unhappy users to 30%, less than one third. And since no one will be left with more than one unfixed bug, chances of losing them are smaller.

People don't get mad because small bugs. They get mad because big ones - or too many small ones at once. And since big bugs are easily detected and fixed on the spot (ideally, at least), the corollary is that you lose your users due small bugs...

 

11 hours ago, paul_c said:

It does seem a bit like two steps forward, one step back.

Yep. It would be better to walk slower, as the aftermath is the same and you would save resources by not wasting "steps".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

Users are being affected by a collection of bugs, not only by one.

then you can not argue like

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

at least 25% (5% of B and 20% of C) of the user base

because the percentages don't just add up.

If you want the users affected by B or C (or both "B and C") then the overall percentage is

P(B or C) = P(B) + P(C) - P(B and C)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mythos said:

When you say

then you can not argue like

because the percentages don't just add up.

If you want the users affected by B or C (or both "B and C") then the overall percentage is

P(B or C) = P(B) + P(C) - P(B and C)

Thank you. I despise statistics because my brain just can’t wrap my head around them properly (maybe my professor was bad), but I knew something wasn’t right there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mythos said:

If you want the users affected by B or C (or both "B and C") then the overall percentage is

P(B or C) = P(B) + P(C) - P(B and C)

Good! You know math! ;) 

How about then:

Quote

at most 25% (the union of the 5% of B and the 20% of C) of the user base

Now explain where this affects the core of my argument? :)  You know, the reason because I created that example and ended up making a mishap late night before sleep. :)

 

4 hours ago, Chemp said:

Is the patch 1.11.0 --> 1.11.1 enough or is it necessary to redownload the DLCs, too?

You need to download it again. I download things from Steam, and Steam tells me what changed between a Release and another.

Making History has a new Release for 1.11.1, but the language packs were not updated - so you need only the main package.

Breaking Ground, on the other hand, had new language packs too, so you need to download again the language pack you need.

(You need to download the language pack for the main game too, as they also were updated)

Edited by Lisias
Hit "Save" by accident. TWICE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lisias said:

I hope for a 1.11.2 release, but experience taught me to be skeptic about.

If I understood correctly one recent altercation on github, bugs are being selected to be fixed based on "popularity", not severity or even criticality . I.E., if the bugs affects more than 50% (I'm guessing), it's fixed. Otherwise, it is not.

It's, IMHO, a sad compromise with a "middle ground". And the problem I see with this is that the "middle ground" for a bug is not necessarily the "middle ground" for another one!

Let's assume a product with 5 bugs, A, B, C, D and E. Bug A affects 30% of the user base, bug B affects 5%, bugs C, D and E affects 20%.

However, and this is where things get hairy, the set of users being affected by these bugs are not mutually exclusive! Users are being affected by a collection of bugs, not only by one. So, users suffering the Bug B can also be suffering the A, C, D or E too. So, let's imagine the following scenario:

1) Users suffering from A are also being affected by B, C, D or E

2) Some users (obviously not all) being affected by C, D and E also are being affected by B.

3) Approximately half of the users suffering from C, D or E also suffers from the others C, D, E but not necessarily all I.E, CD, CE, DE - with only a few ones suffering all the C, D and E.

How you decide what bug needs to be tackled down? How would you decide what to fix or not? Well, one naive approach would be to fix A, then try to fix C, D and E as time allows and completely ignore bug B - after all, only 5% of the user base is being affected but it.

By time constraints, Bugs A, D and E were fixed - ignoring B and C.. Sounds reasonable? Perhaps, but it's wrong!

People that got A and C will still be liquided off because of C. People suffering from B, so we have at least 25% (5% of B and 20% of C) of the user base less than happy. Since half of users suffering D and E also suffers C, we have 10% + 10% = 20% additional users mad with you. So 25% + 20% = 45%. Almost half of the user base!

The less worst  aftermath would be fixing C, D and E and ignoring A, as A+B = 35% of the user base, way less than the 45% I said before. And if fixing B is easy and/or fast, it should be fixed nevertheless, as it would drop the unhappy users to 30%, less than one third. And since no one will be left with more than one unfixed bug, chances of losing them are smaller.

People don't get mad because small bugs. They get mad because big ones - or too many small ones at once. And since big bugs are easily detected and fixed on the spot (ideally, at least), the corollary is that you lose your users due small bugs...

 

Yep. It would be better to walk slower, as the aftermath is the same and you would save resources by not wasting "steps".

Great points. You are probably right but if this is the case, then their approach lacks logic in determining what bugs most players suffer from. Particularly because the number of votes don't reflect reality. I wonder:

-how many players report bugs on the bug tracker? Most likely, most players post in forums that X, Y, Z doesn't work. They get confirmation that it is a confirmed bug from other players. Do most players then upvote the bugs or just make peace with the idea that it's broken, and has been reported? 

- some missions, some functions in the game are more often performed than others. Therefore, if there's a bug with for example rcs rotation axis mixed up, then more people are affected as docking is more common. So, the bug gets reported more often. Surely a survivable bug that doesn't make the game unplayable. But if you run into a bug that is in a very unique scenario and actually makes the game unplayable, it won't get that many upvotes because not many people are affected (How many people try to land a class A asteroid that actually weighs 160t more as soon as you dock with it? Probably fewer than the number of players who run into an rcs bug, for example. Of course class A asteroid capture will have the additional rcs bug. ) I wish we could set the severity of the bug when we add them to the tracker. 

-there should be a list of 'Never do X because it's been broken since the game came out. (Think how often new players ask why their Hammer contract never completes...)

And it would be great if bug reports were actually checked and confirmed. Several items on the tracker still seem like they have not even been looked at. This is why I hope that at one point they leave new features for a while and focus on fixes. (It would be my personal preference at least.) 

It's a great game and I play both on PC and PS5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MZ_per_X1 said:

Great points. You are probably right but if this is the case, then their approach lacks logic in determining what bugs most players suffer from. Particularly because the number of votes don't reflect reality.

Lack of logic may not be the only explanation - perhaps it would be more of a side effect than root cause of the problem.

They could be just overwhelmed by the back log, with some political deadlines being imposed on them and so they would just work to satisfy the metrics, instead of solving problems. "Issue solving" is a terrible metric, it favours fixing side effects instead of solving root causes, as solving root causes gets you no points on the end of the month's performance review - not to mention that by solving a root cause, the kludges made everywhere by the "issue solvers" would break, and so you will be bashed by reopening a lot of issues.

Disclaimer: this is plain speculation based on my previous experiences on big companies, I have absolutely no inside information to support my speculations. :)

 

1 hour ago, MZ_per_X1 said:

-how many players report bugs on the bug tracker? Most likely, most players post in forums that X, Y, Z doesn't work. They get confirmation that it is a confirmed bug from other players. Do most players then upvote the bugs or just make peace with the idea that it's broken, and has been reported? 

No that much. Users are, usually, inclined to prefer fast rewardings and the Issue Tracker, by it's very nature, is not prone to fast rewarding.

More over, some bugs are rally nasty and take a huge amount of effort to diagnose - no to mention the amount of efforts to solve it. On an environment where "issue solving" is promoted instead of "problems solving", these issues tend to be forgotten - wasting the time of the users that expended their free time diagnosing the problem instead of playing the game. And users are inclined to get liquided :P when this happens.

There're a significant amount of people getting CTDs out of the blue for years, and yet no formal acknowledge or at least a work around were issued. People those big problems are ignored usually avoid reporting the small ones - what would be the point? The real big issue would not be solved, after all...

 

1 hour ago, MZ_per_X1 said:

- some missions, some functions in the game are more often performed than others [cut by me] wish we could set the severity of the bug when we add them to the tracker. 

Not only that. Bugs should be correlated with each other - if different bugs are 'fixed' by doing the same thing or by changing the same code, we have an evidence of a root cause being overlooked somewhere else. The same for recurrent bugs. Check when different bugs are reopened at the same time, what is an evidence of a real problem being ignored.

Solve the problems, not the issues.

 

1 hour ago, MZ_per_X1 said:

-there should be a list of 'Never do X because it's been broken since the game came out. (Think how often new players ask why their Hammer contract never completes...)

That list should, ideally, be classified by game Version. :) Some things are broken only on some versions, while working fine on others. With these alternating on releases...

 

1 hour ago, MZ_per_X1 said:

And it would be great if bug reports were actually checked and confirmed. Several items on the tracker still seem like they have not even been looked at. This is why I hope that at one point they leave new features for a while and focus on fixes. (It would be my personal preference at least.) 

I could not agree more.

 

1 hour ago, MZ_per_X1 said:

It's a great game and I play both on PC and PS5. 

There's no doubt about this. Some people are bashing their arses here for years, creating work arounds for the worse bugs, or just plain fixing them. We would not be doing that if the game wasn't so great. However... The list of bugs don't stop growing, every single new release comes with an Axe being used on the user's toys, so the user end up having to choose to abandon his/her career on the previous game to start a new one on the new Release as some of his/her add'ons (or part of the add'ons) just don't work o the new Release.

I heard somewhere else on this forum that more than 90% of the users just don't leave the Kerbin sphere of influence. Well, why they would do so? Every 3 or 4 months a new Release is issued that renders their ongoing game unusable and the user need to choose what's more important: the new release bug fixes and eye candies, or his/her current ongoing game - so most users just engage on fast, short gaming sessions that lasts no more than 3 or 4 months and that's it.

I still playing 1.7.3, by the way. I do some things using the newer KSP versions to check the add'ons I author, but my long running gamings are still on 1.7.3 and I don't see this changing on the foreseeable future. In a year more os less KSP2 is expected to be launched, anyway - so I don't think it will worth the hassle to update my "production" savegames.

What's a pity, because nowadays the game is faster, prettier, and with some new well finished toys to play with. But I'm not interested on restarting from scratch on every Release, neither I'm willing to withhold these pesky bugs that are never solved - not to mention some very cool add'ons that just don't work anymore, or are being crippled on the newer releases.

So I download the newer KSP, play a bit with it, update my add'ons as time allows and on the very few occasions that life allows me to really play the way I like on KSP, I go back to 1.7.3.

Edited by Lisias
Lots and lots of tyops!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this mod is supposed to fix some bouncing but I recently, after the update, now have bouncing issues with vessels.  I just started landing stuff on minimus so I am unsure if it is related to this latest update or something that has been there.  All of the posts I have read are from a few years ago.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

heard somewhere else on this forum that more than 90% of the users just don't leave the Kerbin sphere of influence. Well, why they would do so? Every 3 or 4 months a new Release is issued that renders their ongoing game unusable and the user need to choose what's more important: the new release bug fixes and eye candies, or his/her current ongoing game - so most users just engage on fast, short gaming sessions that lasts no more than 3 or 4 months and that's it.

I still playing 1.7.3, by the way. I do some things using the newer KSP versions to check the add'ons I author, but my long running gamings are still on 1.7.3 and I don't see this changing on the foreseeable future. In a year more os less KSP2 is expected to be launched, anyway - so I don't think it will worth the hassle to update my "production" savegames.

What's a pity, because nowadays the game is faster, prettier, and with some new well finished toys to play with. But I'm not interested on restarting from scratch on every Release, neither I'm willing to withhold these pesky bugs that are never solved - not to mention some very cool add'ons that just don't work anymore, or are being crippled on the newer releases.

So I download the newer KSP, play a bit with it, update my add'ons as time allows and on the very few occasions that life allows me to really play the way I like on KSP, I go back to 1.7.3.

This.

It's 1.10.1 for me, for the same arguments. I stick with that, for the same reasons you stay with 1.73.

So tired, tired of all these new  so called "improvements".

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

the new release bug fixes

Right... fix two, get three new ones.

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

and on the very few occasions that life allows me to really play the way I like on KSP, I go back

Simply this.

You mentioned all this earlier, @Lisias, in another post, last paragraph:

 

"heard somewhere else on this forum that more than 90% of the users just don't leave the Kerbin sphere of influence"

Irc, that was a post by @Snark from 2016(?), quoting a poll from back then?

I'm curious what the numbers would be today.

Edited by VoidSquid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...