Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Krazy1 said:

Interesting. What about 3-fin vs. 4-fin rockets? Most of my 3-fin boosters have awful roll coupling.  Trying to tilt over to do a gravity turn with a 3-fin rocket and it rolls inexplicably. Like, yaw East 10 degrees and it rolls 10 degrees. SAS doesn't help much. It's an absolute battle to get some of them to orbit. It's not a CoM / CoL type of instability. 4-fins boosters don't do this. Only small roll corrections are needed.  I assumed everyone experienced this.

Nope, didn't have this issue in the last launches. Maybe I should mention, that I play KSP in vanilla. Maybe it's a new bug since 1.11? I haven't launched a single rocket since then, as i was more into planes with propellers and helicopters ans spaceplanes in the last weeks. But as up to and including 1.10.1 I did not have the issue which you described.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Anth12 said:

Are you sure Same Vessel Interaction  what caused EJ_SA's craft to RUD? I made a quick test using some of the parts from this video. with the Same Vessel Interaction active on every part, and nothing blew up on launch. I also activated and deactivated the Same Vessel Interaction on the launched craft and nothing bad happened.

The trembling may be related to autostruts (or to some code also used on autostruts, as the one that finds the heaviest part) - big crafts when dock with another big craft suffers from this trembling when they are autostrutted to root of to heaviest part, as the root and the heaviest part changes for one of the crafts (they become one), and the recalculation of the forces ends up infecting the physics engine with spurious forces. At least "my" problem appears to be related to Autostrut to Heaviest, as Wheels are needed to trigger "ICA" (Instantaneous Craft Annihilation - because it's essentially what it is) on me.

 

11 hours ago, Anth12 said:

not sure about the spot light @Rakete

Sorry I meant @Lisias who that was quoted from

The spotlight was the trigger from another video, I mistake EJ_SA's problem from the one from another Kerbonaut - too many reports scattered about this problem, it's hard to keep track of them... :(

 

1 hour ago, Krazy1 said:

Interesting. What about 3-fin vs. 4-fin rockets? Most of my 3-fin boosters have awful roll coupling.  Trying to tilt over to do a gravity turn with a 3-fin rocket and it rolls inexplicably. Like, yaw East 10 degrees and it rolls 10 degrees. SAS doesn't help much. It's an absolute battle to get some of them to orbit. It's not a CoM / CoL type of instability. 4-fins boosters don't do this. Only small roll corrections are needed.  I assumed everyone experienced this.

You are talking about this one, right? (moar info here)

Spoiler

104115838-5ebdea80-52f2-11eb-87ce-4605da

Something similar also happens with Chutes, by the way:

Spoiler

105982048-8e504f00-6075-11eb-97d2-8e8ddb

At least the Chute tilting started to happens on 1.4.0 and it's there since there. On KSP 1.3.1 this does not happens.

Since I'm here, I remade that wing test on KSP 1.3.1 as I did on the Chutes and, guess what? On KSP 1.3.1 it works as expected.

107499534-d1c9b380-6b73-11eb-8e01-eab336

(Surprised?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lisias Theres two things that need to happen for the bug to occur:

1. The part needs to NOT have the ability to use Same Vessel Interaction.

That is, parts when you right click DON'T have the Same Vessel Interaction option at all.

Some of the parts that don't are:

  • Physical Struts
  • Small Pizza Plate (FL-A5 Adapter)
  • Cubic Octagonal Strut
  • Octagonal Strut
  • BZ-52 Radial Attachment Point
  • Vernor Engine
  • Flags
  • Z-400 Rechargeable Battery
  • Z-100 Rechargeable Battery Pack

2. There needs to be clipping with the great grandparent part

What I haven't tested that much is radial attachment because that's why the following video happens. This craft that I made needed a lot of physical struts which are inside other parts.

Oh... and

https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/27242

This bug has parts fall off a craft. Exactly the same ones, ones that don't have the ability to have same vessel interaction.

If you watch the video within the bug report wait for the physical struts to start rolling down the hill....

Edited by Anth12
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dprostock said:

Anyone would say we're at the dawn of the Space Age, and not about a decade-old product...

Technically, 1 year and 4 months. KSP 1.8.0 came on 16th October, 2019.

1.8.0 was a hell of a rewrite migrating from Unity 2016 to 2019 - made over a code base that had about the same age as it was itself a rewrite migrating from Unity5 to Unity 2016 (KSP 1.4 came on 6th March, 2018).

And as my last post suggests, the whole Unity 2016 era collected technical debits that now are being summed up with the ones from the Unity 2019 era.

Spoiler

106-tech-debt.png

 

 

2 hours ago, Anth12 said:

This bug has parts fall off a craft. Exactly the same ones, ones that don't have the ability to have same vessel interaction.

It appears to be completely unrelated to "my" problem (crafts being spawned under the runway/launchpad), but I think they may share a common cause - perhaps an uncaught exception on some low level code (like the one that traverses the craft searching the heaviest part), and depending on where the thing blows up, you have a problem or another...

Edited by Lisias
Brute force post merging
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lisias said:

 

And as my last post suggests, the whole Unity 2016 era collected technical debits that now are being summed up with the ones from the Unity 2019 era.

Mmmm.... 

In ancienthood there were attack wells and even canaries to warn of dangers. Sounds like a lack of foresight...
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi community!

I have a question about

Quote

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

I have noted that a new set of variables showed up in the settings.cfg.

EVA_CONSTRUCTION_RANGE = 7
EVA_CONSTRUCTION_COMBINE_ENABLED = True
EVA_CONSTRUCTION_COMBINE_NONENGINEERS = True
EVA_CONSTRUCTION_COMBINE_RANGE = 7
PART_REPAIR_MASS_PER_KIT = 0.05
PART_REPAIR_MAX_KIT_AMOUNT = 4

What I could not find is the maximum mass / gravity per kerbal. Do you know how much a single kerbal can move on his own?

Is it an automated feature as KIS proposes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2021 at 12:25 PM, dprostock said:

In ancienthood there were attack wells and even canaries to warn of dangers. Sounds like a lack of foresight...

Just modern project management in action.

When KSP 1.4.0 came out, TweakScale broke terribly for a lot of reasons. Some were TweakScale's fault (race conditions, barely legal behaviours on Unity5 that became illegal on 2016, etc).

But not all of them.

Some API calls just ceased to work and well, TweakScale was calling these ones for a reason. Some of that calls are returning NULL no matter what I shove on the parameters even today, what hints me the function was just not coded at all and short-circuited to return NULL (I would prefer the function being deleted, it would had saved a lot of trouble).

One of the worst mistakes on Project Management is the misunderstanding of the Pareto Principle. Pareto postulated that 80% of the consequences came from 20% of the causes. So, if you manage to prevent that 20% of causes from happening, you get rid of 80% of all problems of the project, saving time.

BUT... Modern Project Management, I just don't know how, inferred from the Pareto Principle that it's enough to deliver 80% of the project to have success, solemnly ignoring that the client has paid for 100% of the project. And I'm not kidding, I really had worked on projects where the Manager came with this stunt as a measure to meet tight deadlines.

So, and I'm guessing now (besides being a very educated guess), when KSP was migrated from Unity5 to Unity 2017 for the 1.4.0 release I'm reasonably sure that they hadn't enough time to close all the tasks, so some tasks were left behind. Less than ideal, but if the tasks at hand are enough to deliver a viable product, it's almost impossible for a Manager to postpone the deliver.

Problem - someone had worked on all that use cases on the Unity5 times for a reason, and by shunting some of them, something stopped working for sure. Since a lot of code for the core game were rewritten (as the modules for wheels, for chutes and for wings and control surfaces), the dev guys avoided using the shunted calls - but the rest of the World (we, add'on authors) ended up high and dry on this stunt.

Obviously, not 100% of the KSP guts were rewritten - so it's probable that some of the shunted functions were harming the game too, but not on an obvious way. And as an incredible sequence of bugs were being discovered over time, they were being tackled down on the spot they were detected, instead of solving the root cause (what would also preemptively fix problems not yet discovered).

Now, for KSP 1.8.0 everything had happened again, and again not all tasks could be delivered on time. So now we would have some functions shunted from the Unity 2016 migration, and also the shunts made while transitioning to Unity 2019...

Do the math.

This reminds me of a Case Study I had on class, about a problem Microsoft had with the first versions of Word. Word for Windows (3.0!!) was a revolutionary product for Word Processing on PCs, it essentially blew up Word Perfect from the water, and that is not a small deed - Word Perfect had at that time almost a monopoly on Word Processing on MS-DOS machines. But MS had to deliver the product fast, because SSI (later WordPerfect Corporation) were not stupid (they previously had blew WordStar from water, they were fighting back for their turf) and so MS started the crunch time.

Well, some developer decided it would be a good idea to shunt a function needed to calculate the size of the font to a constant representing the most common font size on the most common screen dpi of that era (we are talking EGA/VGA here, 96 DPI if memory serves me). Problem: most high end computers were already using IBM 8514 (2D) accelerated video card or similar, and the higher resolutions demanded higher screen DPI (120 IIRC).

Well, Word was borking terribly on these high end computers - exactly the most profitable niche of that era.

Spoiler

In the end, Microsoft prevailed besides all that terrible development process of Word (exactly how, it's out of scope of this article, but it's sufficient to say that they didn't played fair, they sabotaged WordPerfect horribly by mangling the Window's API).

The Pareto Principle was never meant to be used to cut down scope of projects, but to minimize the efforts to fulfil the tasks needed for the project (you prevent 20% of some key problems, you save 80% of the trouble). Pareto was a Civil Engineer and worked on the rail industry - and it delivered 100% of the railroads he built.

Edited by Lisias
Entertaining grammars made less entertaining. Again. :P
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Just modern project management in action.

 

When I started in the world of programming, far away and a long time ago with the 8086, I had a boss who prioritized deadlines over quality. We all lost our jobs in the end.
Of course, in a financial system you can't afford mistakes.
Since then, I've been avoiding drowning in the enlightened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, OnlyLightMatters said:

What I could not find is the maximum mass / gravity per kerbal. Do you know how much a single kerbal can move on his own?

I don't know about the .CFG file but I just noticed they added a green text display in the lower left when in "I" mode that shows how many kerbals assisting and max part mass. 1 engineer, 0 assisting shows 0.06t moving capacity on KSC launch pad.

Edited by Krazy1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fastest stock null ref ever...?

  1. In 1.11.1, start new sandbox game 
  2. in VAB build: MK1 pod with Octo2 cargo
  3. put Bill inside Mk1 with a cubic octagonal strut in his cargo (no jetpack needed)
  4. launch
  5. EVA Bill
  6. press "i" 
  7. pick up strut and drop it on the Octo2 to swap them (strut now in capsule cargo, Octo2 active part)
  8. place the Octo2 on top of the capsule
  9. Null Ref error

It seems benign but still SMH.

18 hours ago, Lisias said:

You are talking about this one, right?

Right. It has that force imbalance issue with 3-fin rockets without all the extra wings. They roll when they should only yaw.  

Hmmm... I just tried to build an example rocket and it flies good. What happened. Don't tell me they fixed it in 1.11.1. You were testing on 1.11.0. No... I'll  try again later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Krazy1 said:

Fastest stock null ref ever...?

It seems benign but still SMH.

There're no benign NRE on Flight Scene.

Or the NRE is being properly caught, and then they are screwing up the FPS, or the NRE is not caught and the thread is being killed before finishing all the tasks it needs.

I wrote a kinda essay on this subject here, but TL;DR: You can't have the cake and eat it too - and there's no free lunch.

 

1 hour ago, Krazy1 said:

Right. It has that force imbalance issue with 3-fin rockets without all the extra wings. They roll when they should only yaw.  

Hmmm... I just tried to build an example rocket and it flies good. What happened. Don't tell me they fixed it in 1.11.1. You were testing on 1.11.0. No... I'll  try again later.

Now I'm interested. I just redid the test on 1.11.1 (but with an improved craft, I liked that concept! :D ), and the forces imbalance is still there!

107613735-a86a5f80-6c27-11eb-9deb-921a13

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lisias said:

There're no benign NRE on Flight Scene.

OK... I suppose I'll check the bug reports for this one. And the jetpack fuel not refilling. "EVA Destruction" seems to be covered already.

55 minutes ago, Lisias said:

and the forces imbalance is still there!

Oh good. I was starting to be optimistic. I'll sleep better now. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Krazy1 said:

I don't know about the .CFG file but I just noticed they added a green text display in the lower left when in "I" mode that shows how many kerbals assisting and max part mass. 1 engineer, 0 assisting shows 0.06t moving capacity on KSC launch pad.

Yup, did not notice that at the fist time. I have 0.36t on Eeloo which is between 0.06/0.172=0.348 (surface gravity is 17.2% of Kerbin's) and 0.065/0.172=0.378. So the real value for Kerbin is a bit more than 0.06t.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DaBakonAder said:

Sadly, it doesn't include anything about the falling flag bug

Um. Yes it does. From the bug fixes section of the announcement posted as the OP of this thread.

Fix placed flags falling down.

Also, I started a new 1.11.1 career and can verify that does indeed appear to be fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 2/10/2021 at 3:57 AM, Rakete said:

Nope, didn't have this issue in the last launches. Maybe I should mention, that I play KSP in vanilla. Maybe it's a new bug since 1.11? I haven't launched a single rocket since then, as i was more into planes with propellers and helicopters ans spaceplanes in the last weeks. But as up to and including 1.10.1 I did not have the issue which you described.

The nasty roll coupling with 3-fin rockets isn't a new problem; I've been running into that one for as long as I've been playing KSP (and I started out with 1.2.2).

Undocumented change: the SEQ-3 now has a volume limit (so it's no longer possible to stuff them with arbitrarily-voluminous parts like you could do in 1.11.0, although preexisting craft with overfilled SEQ-3s will still work fine).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lady Sean said:

The nasty roll coupling with 3-fin rockets isn't a new problem; I've been running into that one for as long as I've been playing KSP (and I started out with 1.2.2).

Are you sure? My empirical tests pinpoints 1.4.0 as the source of the problem!

Spoiler

This is a craft on 1.3.1:
107499534-d1c9b380-6b73-11eb-8e01-eab336

This is the same craft imported on 1.4.0:
109883820-be81a380-7c5a-11eb-9bae-a180ad

This is an equivalent one on 1.11.0:
104116178-063c1c80-52f5-11eb-8e57-e98262

Did you see how the lifting forces are terribly unbalanced on KSP >= 1.4.0 ?

I ended up managing to control roll on all KSPs (buggy or not) by carefully adjusting the Authority Limiter on flight, but I must admit that on 1.3.1 this was way easier, probably because the lifting forces are equally distributed on the surfaces. Also, check the SAS, it's way easier to control the thing using it.

Well, in a way or another I never did any tests on anything older than 1.2.2, so I will give this a shot.

-- -- POST EDIT -- -- 

You see, you may have a point! I did the following test on KSP 1.1.3:

Spoiler

109889644-897a4e80-7c64-11eb-8218-2ce034

The behaviour of the Lifting Surface themselves on KSP 1.1.3 didn't differed from my tests on 1.3.1 (and recently 1.2.2), but the SAS behaviour appears to be more... consistent, and the craft is easier to control even without trimming the Authority Limit.

I think you found something - whatever the problem is, apparently SAS is involved on it....

Edited by Lisias
She had a point!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been having problems with Kerbal jet packs not automatically refilling MP after returning to a ship from EVA in 1.11.1. I think I just figured it out (maybe I'm not the first one). You need to manually remove the jetpack from the kerbal inventory and place it in ship inventory- that refills it. Then obviously move it back to kerbal inventory again before another EVA. Now perhaps the devs did this on purpose... but it seems like a bug to me. It's not unrealistic to check your pack fuel and manually refill it before you step out into space, but it's easy to forget. It also does not transfer MP from the ship - it still refills the pack even on ships with no MP onboard. So it still provides infinite jetpack fuel. 

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

I think you found something - whatever the problem is, apparently SAS is involved on it....

I haven't gone back to find a good example of a 3-fin rocket that rolls badly. My KSP exploits were rudely interrupted by a week long power outage here in Oregon. But I recall the roll happened when I released the key I pressed to yaw East, and SAS was on. So  I would tap and release the key periodically to slowly do the gravity turn. Pretty sure the roll primarily happened after releasing the key - when SAS was trying to hold heading. 

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...