Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mciann

  1. I'm gonna call mine a duplicate of this. These are the exact same symptoms I was seeing, but it never occurred to me to try to establish a relationship to time acceleration or altitude.
  2. Extending landing legs imparts a persistent downward (radial in) force to the craft, permanently and irrespective of the craft's orientation. This appears to be 50% reproducible for me. I'm running KSP 2 with the first patch that just dropped. ( AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 12-Core Processor 3.70 GHz 48 GB ram RTX 3060TI graphics Steps to reproduce: Get into orbit, deploy landing legs. Watch Ap/Pe begin to slowly distort. Note - this is different from the initial velocity bump that occurs when landing legs are fully deployed. This is a persistent force that makes further space flight effectively impossible.
  3. Thank you, @AlamoVampire, that was very informative and encouraging.
  4. I'm on 1.05. I was lucky enough to still have it on a backup. The 1.1.x situation really has me quite concerned. At this point, I don't feel like I have a reason to believe that Squad actually intends to fix it. When they released 1.1 initially, they described the release as having "gone smoothly", much to the astonishment of many of us. Saying that is one thing, however. I can certainly understand why they would want us to believe it went smoothly. The problem - and this is what suggests to me that there is a major management/cultural crisis going on inside Squad right now - is that they all proceeded to go on vacation at the exact moment of the what is probably the worst technical crisis in the history of the game. And it wasn't a short vacation, either. We're talking 3+ weeks! I'm not saying the devs don't need a break. They clearly do. I don't begrudge someone time off that they've earned and need. But the decision, at the top, to basically close up the entire shop and have *everyone* go on vacation simultaneously is a baffling and troubling decision. It suggests that Squad itself is drinking its own marketing kool aid. It's one thing to *say* a release went smoothly. Squad, however, seems to have gone one step further. The mass 3 week vacation seems to suggest that they *really believe* it was a smooth release. If that is really the case, then they have a big business problem on their hands, and it's a problem big enough to have a permanent effect on the company and the product. To completely abandon reality like that, at the worst possible moment, absolutely staggers the mind. There are indie houses that would kill for the opportunity to make a mistake this absolutely colossal. This is all speculation, of course. They may understand the gravity of the problem. If so, however, they certainly haven't communicated that fact to us.
  5. I restored a copy of 1.05 from backup and have been finding and archiving mods for it. I really don't know if there's ever going to be a stable release of KSP again unless some major things change at Squad.
  6. Orbiter was a lot less wacky and arcade-y. If you were going to dock in Orbiter, you needed to actually precisely connect the two docking ports with perfect alignment and within speed limits. Whether that's a pro or a con I leave as an exercise for the reader. While Orbiter had some spacecraft construction toolkits, there was nothing like the sandbox construction mode that KSP offers. The planets and moons in Oribiter were all perfectly smooth, featureless spheres. You could download landing zones that had some terrain, but they were only tiny postage stamps of detail in a sea of billiard ball boredom. Orbiter had much better flight management and assistance tools - the HUD, the MFDs, etc. IMHO, KSP vastly oversimplified flight and navigation controls, and bear in mind - my concern on this point isn't an elitism thing - I think some important functionality is lost in the way KSP does things that the average player would enjoy. The map and orbit alignment MFDs, for example... but, well, I guess if you're launching from the equator all the time, those don't really play into it so much. They did make landing spaceplanes a hell of a lot easier, tho. If you guys ever saw Orbiter's landing MFD, however, you'd demand it in KSP. There was no anti-mod elitism in Orbiter. You *had* to use mods to enjoy the game. For example, Orbiter has no sound at all in stock. The stock game had a hover altitude hold mode, and all the navigation tools had auto-maneuvering features, which would make the KSP anti-mechjeb militia froth at the mouth. That isn't to say that Orbiter was free of elitism. Far from it. It was a difficult community in which to be a noob, and those SimNASA amazing persons evidently thought they were actual astronauts. I have fond memories of Orbiter, particularly of playing around with my nuclear powered interplanetary ship, flying the actual Apollo flight profile with a precisely simulated Saturn/Apollo stack (with panels and AGC replica), and of flying the Apollo spacecraft to Jupiter (yes, there is enough delta-V there if you use the lunar ascent and descent stages during the ejection burn). At the end of the day, however, I don't play Orbiter anymore. KSP +mods more than scratches my space flight itch.
  7. Fantastic! Thanks for such a quick reply!
  8. I decided to give this a try, in the hopes of creating realistic interplanetary vessels. I did a little testing and came up with the following: (assuming a round trip Duna mission with a crew of 3 which should take around 6758 hours) (I am using USI LS 0.3.15 for KSP 1.05) I can run straight up supplies (23 2.5m cans) Or I can run greenhouses and attach 64 mini-packs of fertilizer (the only container that seems to be able to hold fertilizer) Given the part count it would seem to take to just get to Duna, I can't begin to imagine what a trip to Jool would look like. I sort of imagined I would get late game advanced parts that would allow me to build a ship that could be self-sustaining, but that appears not to be the case. Am I doing this right? I'm finding it difficult to imagine doing things like land on Tylo with the USI LS mechanics as I understand them. The capacity of the containers doesn't seem to match the requirements of the system as I understand it. It occurs to me that I must not be getting something in all of this. Thanks.
  9. We were seeing problems trying to revert to 1.05 when it was "previous stable release". We were getting random files from the 64 bit 1.1 version mixed in with it, and the game was borked. Proceed with caution, and let us know if you get a functioning 1.05 installation that way. I restored from backup to get back to 1.05.
  10. It *was* noticed. I and others found and reported it during the open beta pre-release phase. These reports were ignored, and 1.1 was released anyway. See above for why I stopped bothering with the bug reporting system. I haven't personally seen the docked phantom forces bug, but then again, I haven't attempted to dock ships in 1.1.x yet.
  11. What would I want them to do about it? I would want them to hold off on the Unity 5 integration until spacecraft could safely touch other things without exploding. If they wanted to abandon their flagship product, which I believe they're still attempting to actually sell. People, stop with the complainer hate. That's a one way trip to elitist, tiny userbase, and I've seen what happens when a space simulator goes down that road. Trust me, you don't want to be there. The complaints that are being made are *legitimate*. Get over it.
  12. I didn't intend to knock anyone's hardware. My point was that the argument "I've never seen a crash, so calling the game broken is unjustified." is an oversimplification. 1.1.2 *is* broken, for several reasons. The continuing crashes some are experiencing in the VAB/SPH and the docked vessel phantom force bug are show stoppers, imho. I'm very happy and grateful for what Squad has done so far. I think 1.1 shows a lot of promise, but it was clearly rushed and isn't cooked yet. I'm hoping they can come back from their break with fresh, rested minds and get us a product that lives up to the stability we came to expect of 1.05.
  13. People - the CTDs appear to be related to performance. I haven't seen any, either, but then again I'm running a quad core i7 i4770 3.5 machine with an MSI high performance gaming motherboard. Not everyone has access to hardware that can survive whatever is going on in the VAB/SPH.
  14. Very well said. Liked for being positive without being elitist or condescending.
  15. Landing leg clipping; popcorn effect - FIXED. Thank you. Landing leg friction - well, I can't really tell if it's any better or not. I still can't land on a Munar incline of more than 20 degrees without oozing downhill on the landing legs. I imagine things will be much worse on Minmus. I guess we'll need skis if we want slope biome science. Mod request - a harpoon.
  16. Landed on the Mun on a 15 degree incline with LT1 legs, and am currently sliding downhill on the landing legs. Picking up speed, too. WTF, Squad?
  17. Landing legs are *NOT* fixed. Feet are still clipping into terrain and hurling spacecraft into the sky.
  18. I'm having the exact same problem. Completely clean install of previous version from Steam, and I'm seeing the same thing. Interested to learn how to correct it.
  19. Just caught another kraken in a different situation. When I reverted to VAB, the generator had resized itself to the default and had no tweakscale option to rescale it. Clearly the tweakscale sizing is unstable, causing the part to randomly start clipping, which invokes the kraken. I think I'm going to give up on Interstellar Extended since there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in fixing it.
  20. I see. Well, as I said, I have a savegame that will recreate the problem 100% of the time. If I can provide any further information or do any testing for you, I'm happy to do so.
  21. Not that I could tell. I'll doublecheck to be sure. Are the tweakscale errors not of concern? [WRN 14:48:11.529] [TweakScale Warning] SmallMoltenSaltReactor(Molten Salt Reactor) has no valid scale factors. This is probably caused by an invalid TweakScale configuration for the part. TweakScale.Tools:LogWf(String, Object[]) TweakScale.TweakScale:CheckForInvalidCfg() TweakScale.TweakScale:Update() [LOG 14:48:11.530] [TweakScale]TweakScale{ _invalidCfg = True _setupRun = True isFreeScale = True 0 scaleFactors = tweakScale = 0.625 currentScale = 0.625 defaultScale = 1.25 } [LOG 14:48:11.531] [TweakScale]ScaleType { name = stack_interstellar isFreeScale = True 6 scaleFactors = 0.625 1.25 1.875 2.5 3.75 5 6 scaleNames = 0.625m 1.25m 1.875m 2.5m 3.75m 5m 8 incrementSlide = 0.01 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 6 TechRequired = nuclearPower nuclearPower nuclearPower largeNuclearPower largeNuclearPower largeNuclearPower defaultScale = 1.25 } [WRN 14:48:11.532] [TweakScale Warning] SmallFNGenerator(Thermal Electric Generator) has no valid scale factors. This is probably caused by an invalid TweakScale configuration for the part. TweakScale.Tools:LogWf(String, Object[]) TweakScale.TweakScale:CheckForInvalidCfg() TweakScale.TweakScale:Update() [LOG 14:48:11.533] [TweakScale]TweakScale{ _invalidCfg = True _setupRun = True isFreeScale = True 0 scaleFactors = tweakScale = 0.625 currentScale = 0.625 defaultScale = 2.5 } [LOG 14:48:11.533] [TweakScale]ScaleType { name = stack_interstellar isFreeScale = True 6 scaleFactors = 0.625 1.25 1.875 2.5 3.75 5 6 scaleNames = 0.625m 1.25m 1.875m 2.5m 3.75m 5m 8 incrementSlide = 0.01 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 6 TechRequired = largeElectrics largeElectrics largeElectrics largeElectrics specializedElectrics specializedElectrics defaultScale = 2.5 }
  22. KSP.log and output_log.txt are here: http://www.filedropper.com/krakenlogs The event occurs at 14:48:15 system time. If I can provide any further information, please let me know. Thanks.
  23. I'm not sure how to do that. I do have a quicksave that will reproduce the problem 100% of the time, however.
  24. I just got a kraken attack on 1.1.6 with a science lander with a molten salt reactor, brayton cycle gas turbine generator, and two flat radiators. The reactor/generator were scaled down to .625 meters and the flat radiators were scaled down by 50%. The first sign of trouble was wild rotation after coming out of time accel. A few moments later, the generator tore itself away at mach 1 million. I was able to land the rest of the ship on battery power and get the crew out safely. Was anything added to 1.1.7 that could have prevented this? Any ideas otherwise? Thanks. Further info: The following information appears in the debug screen: [Warning]: [TweakScale Warning] No valid member found for partMass in FNGenerator TweakScale.Tools:LogWf(String, Object[]) TweakScale.MemberUpdater:Create(Object, String) TweakScale.ScaleExponents:UpdateFields(Object, Object, ScalingFactor, Part) TweakScale.ScaleExponents:UpdateObject(Part, Part, Dictionary`2, ScalingFactor) TweakScale.TSGenericUpdater:OnRescale(ScalingFactor) TweakScale.TweakScale:Setup() TweakScale.TweakScale:OnLoad(ConfigNode) PartModule:Load(ConfigNode) Part:LoadModule(ConfigNode, Int32&) ProtoPartModuleSnapshot:Load(Part, Int32&) ProtoPartSnapshot:Load(Vessel, Boolean) ProtoVessel:LoadObjects() Vessel:Load() Vessel:MakeActive() FlightGlobals:setActiveVessel(Vessel, Boolean) FlightGlobals:SetActiveVessel(Vessel) FlightDriver:Start()
  25. Sarbian: I'm seeing the number of dev builds that have gone up lately and I just want to say thank you. It's obvious you are working very hard on this, and I appreciate it.
  • Create New...