SolarAdmiral

Thanks. Wanted to check it wasn't just me. I've had it happen I think three times now. Tonight and last night. I think all three times was when I switched to the vessel from the tracking station. Although one time might have been when switching from another vehicle. I mostly wanted to get this down in text before the science update comes out so I have some record it was happening before the science update, for whatever that may help. Anyway, it's pretty late and I've failed to reproduce it tonight now that I've been paying closer attention. And I've been trying for a few hours. And with the new update coming tomorrow I suppose it will be more useful trying to get it to happen after the update.

I searched the bug reports section and wasn't able to find this reported yet. I'm not making a bug report yet because I don't feel like I have much information about it. But over the last few days I've been launching a handful of ships and leaving them in Kerbin orbit. Sometimes when I switch back to them after doing something else, I've found them throttled up to full, burning fuel and changing their orbit. Now I'm 100% sure I shut off the throttles before switching away from the vessel. This might be because I'm launching a bunch of ships one after another, sometimes returning to the VAB to build another, sometimes reverting after a failed launch, sometimes switching to the tracking station or directly to another ship. It always seems to be only the throttle. I've never had a deactivated engine, activate itself. It doesn't seem to happen regularly or even that often. I can close and save the game and return to a vessel that was affected and it won't happen the next time. Maybe it's because I'm switching away or leaving the vessel right after cutting rhe throttle? And the throttle down isn't saved by the game when I leave it? I'll try waiting a bit after throttling down before switching away or doing a bit of time warp at zero throttle first in the future to see if that stops it. It might even throttle up, or forget that I throttled down shortly after switching away from a vessel. As on two occasions I've returned to a vessel after a while to find its throttle at full and it has burned more than half a tank of fuel I left it nearly full with. Though strangely without the change in orbit I would have expected. These were both huge hydrogen nuclear tankers, with between 200 and 400 tons of hydrogen. When I left them, their engines were off and the tanks were almost full. When I returned the engines were on full and the tanks were half empty. But they were still in stable circular obits of kerbin. I'll try and experiment with it after the new update tomorrow.

Reported Version: v0.1.5.0 (latest) | Mods: none OS: Windows 11 | CPU: i7 13700K | GPU: 3070ti | RAM: 64GB DDR4 I'm also getting this pretty regularly in 1.5.0 https://imgur.com/a/G4zcXIz Here's an example. Lander going in to the Mun. Quite a few minutes after exiting timewarp from the transfer. Opening the gear blows one of them off the craft and sets it spinning. Closing and reopening the gear causes another bump, causing spinning in another direction. Time warping to stop spinning, and exiting time warp with the gear open also causes another bump. It seems once it happens, it continues to happen every time gear is opened or time warp is exited with gear open. Doesn't seem to happen with the same craft when on the pad or in kerbin's atmosphere.

Has anyone else noticed how struts now snap the same way on both ends? (There does appear to be some bugs for placing struts and symmetry, but looking passed that) Both the first placed end and the second placed end snap to the vessel parts the same way when snapping is on. As opposed to KSP1 where the first end snapped, then the second end did whatever it wanted, usually looking very different. Possibly the single best improvement for the little obsessive perfectionist inside me. Loading times are also fantastic. Starting the game takes only a moment, loading between buildings and vessels a fraction of the time as before. Also love the art and sound direction. And I love the old digital style for the UI.

Have finished a run to the mun and back. Two issues, wondering if anyone else has seen this. Landing gear (LT-1 Wallaroo), compresses very far. Fairly light lander, just a 2 seat lander can (Tuna) with 4 gear. 2 on one side completely compress. Would be good if they were firmer. Docking ports produce a lot of acceleration when undocking, enough to deorbit when undocking around the mun. Also, less pressing. Kerbals really love sneaking into unoccupied seats. Apollo like mun mission, no matter how many times I open to remove extra kerbals from the lander can, they seem to be back in those seats after every revert or reload. Everything else went well. Performance is still pretty good. Still performs well with larger saturn-v like rockets. Also, love being able to move directly to and from other KSC buildings. Any reason the Tracking Center is greyed out in the VAB though? Also, can't name vessels with an "M" in the name. Typing name, seems to still use some keystokes. Pressing M even while typing name opens map.

So, 1.5hr in, mostly have just been building and flying to orbit. Really great so far. Performance has been pretty good, 13700K - RTX 3070Ti, all setting highest, easily over 120 fps everywhere except launching through the atmosphere where its about 50 fps. Even with some fairly large rockets (XL size, 4 Mammoth 2s, 4 Clydesdale boosters). Thing I most miss from KSP1 so far - Inline docking port and shielded docking port. (I think I have seen them in videos, have they just been taken out of this build for some reason?) Biggest feedback so far. I find the lighting in the VAB very dim and feel a bit of eye strain after focusing on builds. I wouldn't mind some brighter lighting for building! I haven't been able to pick up all the camera controls for the VAB yet. I don't know how to move camera from side to side, or switch focus between vessels in the workspace, so I will now be going to check the tutorials for this. I'm not really sure how vessel naming works with the new workspace. Are all vessels renamed when changing the name, or just the active one. Could be clearer. It is going to take me an embarrassingly long time to remember to switch the launch location to the runway instead of the launch pad when launching a plane. (Maybe the runway could become the default launch for horizontally built craft?) Wishlist item, a bigger beefier more powerful Rapier engine. I'd love to build bigger SSTOs without needing dozens upon dozens of engines to get it off the ground. A medium or even large Rapier would be fantastic.

Strange, I was charged the $67 Canadian (before tax) on steam as listed above. If its a big enough deal for you, maybe contact steam

No. But maybe a 4040 or a 5030.

Going to cut KSP2 any slack for coming out 11 years after KSP1? That's a laptop that came out 2 years after KSP1. So we should compare to the performance of KSP2 on a crappy work laptop from 2025. And it works the other way too. In 4 years, KSP2 will be back down to running on a potato again. I understand folks can't afford to keep up on the cutting edge, but you can give it a couple years and the hardware to run it will be low end and cheap or used and even cheaper.

Okay buddy, if you say so. Have you ever been satisfied with the graphical improvements between a game and its sequel?

I'm making a prediction now. In 10 years, 2033, everyone will be bragging about how they're playing KSP2 on their "old potato" computers from 2028, and complaining KSP2 only looks good with tons of graphics mods installed.

The link you sent said Win 10, probably just what it had when it first came out. But yeh, if you buy a PC even a cheap one, you can reasonably expect it to run a game almost 10 years old.

Ha no worries. Well going by the fact it comes with Windows 10, the oldest it could possibly be is 2015. So, the reason it can play KSP despite being a potato, is that it came out 4 years after the game. Basically, your pc wouldn't have been a potato in 2011.

Maybe I'm just an old gamer now. But I remember the days of needing to upgrade my PC every 4 to 5 years to play the newest games. And if I didn't have cash handy, I'd have to hold off playing the newest stuff until I could make the upgrade. The GTX1060 came out 6.5 years ago.

Are we talking a 2023 potato or a 2011 potato though?

Yep, that's KSP1plus right there. Basically the same game.

Sure. My hot take, is a five year old pc is getting dangerously close to potato territory. The core 2 duo was a 5 year old pc by the time ksp came out. You would have paid $400 brand new just for enough ram to run ksp when it came out in the future. Now we have a minimum recommended for a RTX 2060, which is 4 going on 5. (And maybe it will still run alright but not great on lower end systems. Maybe it will be optimized over the next year or two.) It's kind of the same.

The Core 2 Duo was only 5 years old at the time of ksp's release. And if you bought 4gb of ram with a brand new core 2 it might have cost you over $400. (Just the ram, in the year the Core 2 came out) Also, lots of games don't post requirements until 1 week before launch.

So. Ksp has a minimum requirement of 512mb vram (listed on steam, not sure if that is still accurate based on how KSP has changed over the years. And definitely wouldn't handle many graphics mods) and was first available in 2011. At the time, the 8600GT was a 5 year old card that cost $200 at release and only just met that requirement. Now in 2023, the minimum is the RTX 2060, a 4 year old card that cost $350 at release. Not all that different really with how prices have increased. Today's upper-mid gaming pc is tomorrow's potato.

I was curious and looked it up, and thought the result was interesting enough to share. The PS5 and the new Xbox have hardware very close to the recommended. Gpu similar to a RX6700, and an 8 core 3.5ghz CPU similar to a R7 3700X. So it looks pretty clear like that's what they're targeting for system requirements. Good news for it performing well when it gets to console. And puts it in context for us on PCs.

To put it in a little more context, the new Xbox and the PS5 have hardware that is close to what is listed as recommended. Add to that, the 1.0 release of the game will likely make it a 2024 or 2025 game, so these specs aren't really all that out of line.

The 6gb 1060 might be able to make it. But I wouldn't count on the 3gb 1060.

I asked this in the other post for the system specs. But I was wondering what resolutions they're talking about. Anyone know how other games do it nowadays? Like is it maybe RTX 3080 recommended for 4k and minimum 2060 for 1080p?

Admittedly, it's been a long time since I paid attention to a game's system requirements. Anyone know what resolutions they're usually talking about? Like would the "recommended" RTX 3080 be at 4k? I'm hoping this isn't recommending a RTX 3080 just for 1080p.

Yeh I'm not mad about it or even sure it will be a bad change. Even if we can move them, I'm going to give it a good try as is first to see how it works in the new layout.