Liking .24.2 better than .25

[skeevy]

I'd prefer 0.25 if I could EVA. No EVA means I lose a good deal of gameplay and science gathering. How did something that game breaking make it past all the bug testers?

And FAR for 0.25 works with 64 bit, just not Windows 64 bit. I wish people would include the Windows part of the 64 bit sucks comments. 64 bit KSP is the best way to play...just not with Windows.

[boxman]

I'd prefer 0.25 if I could EVA. No EVA means I lose a good deal of gameplay and science gathering. How did something that game breaking make it past all the bug testers?

And FAR for 0.25 works with 64 bit, just not Windows 64 bit. I wish people would include the Windows part of the 64 bit sucks comments. 64 bit KSP is the best way to play...just not with Windows.

They should just let everyone apply to experimentals instead of just the focused media groups/big youtubers/streamers. It is pretty obvious now that they are not sufficient to find all bugs and I bet most people here would be happy to be able to try out a new build as well even if it has severe bugs.

[Franklin]

the wings act the same. Just note that the small control surface is a lot less effective than the old one, so I don't use it on big planes.

Exactly. They're different wing parts with different performance metrics than the old parts, that's all that's "changed".

[Spartan-S63]

They should just let everyone apply to experimentals instead of just the focused media groups/big youtubers/streamers. It is pretty obvious now that they are not sufficient to find all bugs and I bet most people here would be happy to be able to try out a new build as well even if it has severe bugs.

I also don't like that mod creators are intentionally locking out KSP 0.25 64 bit support. I personally experience no instability playing the stock 0.25 64 bit game and I'd like to add mods. I understand they don't officially support it and won't offer assistance in the case that the game crashes, but I don't like that they're intentionally disabling their mods for KSP Win64.

[skeevy]

They should just let everyone apply to experimentals instead of just the focused media groups/big youtubers/streamers. It is pretty obvious now that they are not sufficient to find all bugs and I bet most people here would be happy to be able to try out a new build as well even if it has severe bugs.

Agreed. Especially if Squad can make it so mods are rendered useless on those experimental builds. Weekly progress builds with no modding allowed. Plenty of us would sign up for that so we can help find bugs and improve core KSP gameplay. The only downside is that Squad wouldn't be able to add in "secret" features and build up the hype like they currently can; on the other hand, if they had their own testers-only forum and a clause that says if you discuss testing builds outside of these threads, you risk getting kicked from testing and KSP forums, that would hopefully cut down on the leaks.

I'm gonna be on the lookout for the next "we need testers" thread. I always seem to find them a week or two too late.

[skeevy]

I also don't like that mod creators are intentionally locking out KSP 0.25 64 bit support. I personally experience no instability playing the stock 0.25 64 bit game and I'd like to add mods. I understand they don't officially support it and won't offer assistance in the case that the game crashes, but I don't like that they're intentionally disabling their mods for KSP Win64.

Neither did I, but if you read the forums...some people here were just really damn rude about Win x64 bugs during 0.24, nor did a lot of those people give meaningful bug reports with logs and what not...a lot were just "your mod sucks because it doesn't work with Win x64". If I were a modder, I'd do the same thing. Wanna say my mod sucks when you run a buggy system? Fine, no soup for you.

The reality is Squad shouldn't have released Win x64 yet, only if they didn't, you'd see a lot of threads about how to recompile the x32 version into an unofficial x64 (it happened near the end of 0.23.5 and is why 0.24 came with a Win x64 build). By Squad releasing their own version, they can at least attempt to get bugs and fixes on their version and not some user made one....even if it really isn't ready for actual use.

[Epthelyn]

The reality is Squad shouldn't have released Win x64 yet, only if they didn't, you'd see a lot of threads about how to recompile the x32 version into an unofficial x64 (it happened near the end of 0.23.5 and is why 0.24 came with a Win x64 build). By Squad releasing their own version, they can at least attempt to get bugs and fixes on their version and not some user made one....even if it really isn't ready for actual use.

It was released with a clear warning that it was experimental and probably going to break something.

It was then made clear, through player experience, that x64 is ridiculously unstable for most people (read: testing). There are number of lucky people who can run it without a problem though, not that it matters when mods don't have x64 support of course.

[LABHOUSE]

It seems to be getting very few mentions, but I am a huge fan of the hold-down-Alt-to-only-connect-to-nodes in the VAB/SPH.

The obvious benefit is adding stuff to cargo bays, but actually you can use this for various situations where you're struggling to get 2 nodes to meet.

A small thing but a really helpful one.

Main reason I used kerbal engineer next was so I could place in exact centre.

[Zylark]

The better stability of .25 is reason enough for me at least to prefer it over .24.2. So far, not a single crash, hang-up or glitch. No big bugs, not even medium ones. Only the tiny weeny though somewhat annoying ones. Like press twice to lower landing-legs, wobbly nodes from time to time, difficulty of creating a node on current orbit if next orbit overlaps. The usual stuff we all love to hate.

Running with a ton of mods that all seem to play nice with each other. Allthough, the mods that gave me the most headaches in .24.2 is off my mod-list in my new .25 career.

[Pecan]

Main reason I used kerbal engineer next was so I could place in exact centre.

Huh? Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) never used to change anything in the editor or chane building in any way. Are you thinking of Editor Extensions with centre-snap or am I just out of date?

[OgreMagi]

been away at school and logged on to find the update, initially pleased with the prospect of new space plane parts until I tried to fly my old designs and they were bugged...

Main problem way my ssto, I build one using a shuttle cockpit and was halfway on a mission to Jool and now I have to fix it and restart. The primary problem was my designed used a mk 3 to 1.5 meter FUEL tank now it has FUEL and OXY, unbalancing the space plane making it unstable to fly.

the new cockpit looks nice but I cannot balance it using flaps. THe new flaps are hard to fit on the wings, they fit but look crappy. I never did download the Aero mod, where these parts originated, I wanted to try the stock parts and found they worked well enough.

The main problem is the most useful pod the 4 man passenger pod, does not look right on any other cockpit. so I think I simply wont use them until they are fixed or modified to be used with the other cockpits.

[skeevy]

It was released with a clear warning that it was experimental and probably going to break something.

It was then made clear, through player experience, that x64 is ridiculously unstable for most people (read: testing). There are number of lucky people who can run it without a problem though, not that it matters when mods don't have x64 support of course.

I was one of those lucky Win x64 users where KSP just worked, and I'm also one of the biggest advocates in the "switch to Linux to play KSP" camp; but I made the switch before all this just because I saw it coming, and more importantly, I wanted a superior modded experience and there's only so much ATM and -opengl can do.

Anyways...how many people do you know that actually take warnings and stuff like that seriously for anything, not just "this platform is experimental, expect the Kraken", but "danger, shallow water, do not jump", "smoking may cause cancer", "don't throw into fire, may explode", or "if you do that too much you could pull it off or go blind"?

Now that I've pointed out the people don't generally take heed to warnings, they also didn't take notice of the big, bold letters in various mod posts about it not working on Win x64 (they STILL don't). Instead, they spammed threads about a "buggy" mod, when in reality, the mod wasn't buggy, the specific KSP architecture/version was.

What sucks is with the Win x64 blocks, the modders are just trying to get people to use their mod on a platform that they can actually accept a bug report from....then we get people trying to circumvent the block which ultimately caused the "stupid_chris situation" that almost cost us one of the best mods around.

I feel like the modders and Squad would like to do this to some of those Win x64 users

Edited November 16, 2014 by sal_vager

[Roflcopterkklol]

Both planes fly completely unrealistic. No plane in existence can turn like that.

tl/dl: Needs more FAR.

Lol with FAR both planes are capable of 20g+ turns, FAR makes things much more realistic

been away at school and logged on to find the update, initially pleased with the prospect of new space plane parts until I tried to fly my old designs and they were bugged...

Main problem way my ssto, I build one using a shuttle cockpit and was halfway on a mission to Jool and now I have to fix it and restart. The primary problem was my designed used a mk 3 to 1.5 meter FUEL tank now it has FUEL and OXY, unbalancing the space plane making it unstable to fly.

the new cockpit looks nice but I cannot balance it using flaps. THe new flaps are hard to fit on the wings, they fit but look crappy. I never did download the Aero mod, where these parts originated, I wanted to try the stock parts and found they worked well enough.

The main problem is the most useful pod the 4 man passenger pod, does not look right on any other cockpit. so I think I simply wont use them until they are fixed or modified to be used with the other cockpits.

I have no idea why they removed the old wings/control surfaces, i can not use things like my Command beetle anymore because of that 1 simple thing.

Just on a side note, Did anyone else notice the mk3 to mk2 adapter does not fit onto the new mk2 fuselage?

It is smaller.

Basically you can only use the mk3 cockpit with the big f off LF tanks.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Roflcopterkklol

[merendel]

only thing I could do without is the runway blowing up when I send a heavy plane out to launch on it. If they tweekd runway and launchpad to be a tad more durable so normal use didnt break them I'd be perfectly content with the patch. As it is I'm mostly content.

[TheFlyingPigs]

Or you just delete the Squad Folder (and maybe the NASA mission nfolder) in Game Data and start the patcher anew.

... I knew that... I need to walk outside

STUPID STUPID STUPID ARRGH

I'm back and didn't rage at all, thanks for the help!

[Scarecrow88]

I was disappointed that they redesigned some of the aircraft parts, rather than keeping the existing parts and adding the redesigns as new additional parts. My passable Harrier imitation looks completely different in .25 due to the delta wings and control surfaces being given an overhaul and now looking completely different.

[Linear]

I was disappointed that they redesigned some of the aircraft parts, rather than keeping the existing parts and adding the redesigns as new additional parts. My passable Harrier imitation looks completely different in .25 due to the delta wings and control surfaces being given an overhaul and now looking completely different.

Redesign and improve.

[Solarspaceprobe]

I can't believe they removed the old surfaces. The swept wing is the only old wing, and now NONE OF THE SURFACES WORK WITH IT. I love the SP+ parts, but I at the same time demand those older parts. I'm sick of having to put in three parts in the place of one large control surfaces, and it may not even fit the design I'm making! Can't we have those old control surfaces and wings, even as a downloaded parts-pack? Sure, the old structural wingboard was sort of...wavy, but if you're keeping the swept wings Squad, please give us at least our old large control surfaces.

[Rithsom]

I do agree that planes made in 0.25 fly more realistically. A constant 15+Gs whenever pulling a turn would cause serious damage to real life aircraft.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Rthsom

[Deathsoul097]

The .24.2 craft has more clipped control surfaces on the inside, the old control surfaces are a lot smaller, could simply put more on the inside of a plane lol.

you are right about the flying more realistically, it is just when you get into large designs like this plane here, the parts nearly weigh more than the lift they generate and you can not clip enough control surfaces inside the craft for it to fly either.

Without the wings it flies with just thrust and SAS control from a vertical take off, there is no reason why wings should make it too heavy to fly, i have made much larger craft that weigh less and fly fine using the old wings, cant do it with these.

heck this has too many wings imo and it still has trouble getting off the runway.

I going to have to use FAR or NEAR to be able to make planes in .25 maybe lol? it works alright with FAR on... which annoys me.

http://i.imgur.com/M56GiNk.jpg

Can I just say, a lot of those wings are sideways. And sideways wings dont produce lift. (In stock, that is. It'll work in FAR thanks to the different ways it calculates lift, including lifting body physics.) Basically, you've got literal tonnes of dead weight on there, that you think should be giving you lift, but really arent.

Edited November 16, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[Madrias]

I, too, hate the complete eradication of my old control surfaces (and the old delta wings, too) because I designed a lot of craft where those surfaces were cosmetic.

Also, while SP+ is an awesome mod, and makes awesome stock-a-like shuttles possible, the wings don't match anything else but SP+ craft. Sorry, thumbs down in my book.

Stability went right down the crapper, too. I get more crashes in 0.25 x86 than I got in 0.24.2 x64. 0.25's x64 quickly turned into a joke. Even with the same mods, minus SP+, it somehow eats more RAM...

The only good things about .25 in my mind are the destructable buildings (which are hilarious in Sandbox only.) and the editor thing with the hold key to disable surface attachment. Not all that excited about the 'Z' to max throttle. Had a mod (Floor It) that did that exact thing.

All up, I tend to enjoy .24.2 more.

[RocketBlam]

Anyone else?

I am going to build complex designs that take upwards of 5 hours in build times, get to the end and something that would have worked in .24.2 simply will not in .25.

This SSTO I made in .25 achieves orbit with fuel to spare for reentry, at less than 8 tons. Not sure what you're doing wrong.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/11214-The-K-Prize-100-reusable-spaceplane-to-orbit-and-back?p=1470758#post1470758

[Bekiekutmoar]

I'm still at version 0.24.2. Most prominent reason is the horribly deformed ground-textures on the various celestial bodies.

[Googol]

I made a post in bug reports when 0.25 launched, because of how terrible and slippery the new parts handle.

I hate them.

[montyben101]

Since I use sandbox mode there is very little difference between these versions. I had to turn off destructible buildings since the launch pad kept exploding if I put a shuttle on it. I already had a crew transfer mod too so really the only difference was being able to turn surface attach mode on and off in the VAB and SPH