basic.syntax

Saw it today, a short time after coming out of ~30 days of timewarp (in the tracking station.) From tracking, I activated / jumped to a ship that was on 80k orbit of Kerbin to plot a maneuver, then used KAC icon on the maneuver node, to warp to that point. I Don't think KAC has anything to do with bug, have seen problem w/o KAC installed. (I was planning a long burn out of Kerbin, and made a fortunate backup of persistent save, a moment before I timewarped to the maneuver node.) This excerpt from output_log shows just wings affected, 4 different types. 1/26/2015 11:21:27 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Triggering Alarm - Warp to ManNode (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) 1/26/2015 11:21:27 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Warp to ManNode-Halt Warp (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) 1/26/2015 11:21:27 PM,KerbalAlarmClock,Actioning Alarm (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) delta.small collided into Water Pipe - relative velocity: 2062.667 - no impact momentum (no RB) (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) delta.small Exploded!! - blast awesomeness: 0.1 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [delta.small]: Deactivated (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [04:30:29]: Small Delta Wing collided into Launch Pad. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) 1 explosions created. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) delta.small collided into Water Pipe - relative velocity: 2065.52 - no impact momentum (no RB) (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) delta.small Exploded!! - blast awesomeness: 0.1 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [delta.small]: Deactivated (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) 1 explosions created. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) deltaWing collided into Water Pipe - relative velocity: 2063.238 - no impact momentum (no RB) (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) deltaWing Exploded!! - blast awesomeness: 0.1 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [deltaWing]: Deactivated (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [04:30:29]: Delta Wing collided into Launch Pad. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) deltaWing collided into Water Pipe - relative velocity: 2063.457 - no impact momentum (no RB) (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [Explosion] Combined. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) deltaWing Exploded!! - blast awesomeness: 0.1 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [deltaWing]: Deactivated (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) 1 explosions created. (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) sweptWing1 collided into Water Pipe - relative velocity: 2063.383 - no impact momentum (no RB) (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) sweptWing1 Exploded!! - blast awesomeness: 0.1 (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) [sweptWing1]: Deactivated (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) dT is NaN! tA: 3.29984872043133, E: 0, M: 0, T: NaN (Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49) dT is NaN! tA: 6.20944452285767, E: 0, M: 0, T: NaN

He could have led off with a comment like "Despite its flaws..." but nope, just praise.

Bug fixing comes last... or at least get postponed, when insiders know that a feature is planned for overhaul. I'm sure that's why some known long-standing bugs are long-standing. If this was not put out for early access... we might not have known some of them existed. But its generally true that the earlier in development a bug is found and fixed, the cheaper it is. Its easier to undo a snag in a ball of yarn, before it has grown into a ball of yarn Software testing is considered an expense to companies; testing staff can be reduced as more checks are pushed up the chain, into the development process. (Not that they appreciate this.) IDE's and Compilers are getting packed with more and more features to check code work as it is being created. Up until the day 1.0 ships, we are still in beta, I take them at their word that many long-standing bugs will be addressed in the coming months.

I think the overall problem with re-creating this in KSP, is that KSP does not simulate N-body physics. Each time you leave the "Sphere of Influence" (link takes you into waycomplex territory) of one body, your ship is handed off to the gravitational effects of the other. KSP does a good job of handing off your momentum from one transition to the next, but its not as smooth or realistic as it could be, if the simulation took each planetary body grav effect on your ship into account.

Some have said that critics, especially large gaming site reviewers, will come out of the woodwork, and call out every bug and things that seems missing, when KSP goes 1.0. Of course, some of that may happen. PC Gamer is saying nice things today - He could have led off with a comment like "Despite its flaws... " but nope, just praise.

When you look at the poll question, don't judge KSP as fit for a "1.0" release as-is, with what you see today in .90 - but also consider their "1.0" goals, announced in the Beyond Beta and Overhauled Aerodynamics articles.

Totally agree. Asym. drag should be a Thing in stock game. A new consideration, added to where center of mass is. Can't wait to see it and fight with it

I'd like to see a tooltip pop up with the rep number, when I point at the rep gauge at the top. As your Reputation goes up, you are offered higher-paying contracts. If you pay a rep cost when changing an administration Strategy, that could affect the funds / science rewards in contracts you're offered, until you've built it up again.

Yay for other ideas and more creative thinking! That's what I like about KSP Nice Once you start adding overhaul mods like FAR, there is no end to what you can do, or want next

Devnote Tuesday will most likely have the next official response to community concerns - let's be patient.

Anyone can make a new Frankenstein-based movie without paying to use the story, but like folks are saying, copying the look of the monster, that is copyrighted by Universal, is a no-no. By the same token, the works of Shakespeare are endlessly adapted for various movies and TV, because they are public domain. And awesome I think Mortimer is the reason... that that other, competing space program on Kerbin... that none of the other Kerbals talk about - is no longer a thing

The Mk3 IVA was delayed, that's why the Mk3 cockpit has a funny note in its description. I fully expect to see it in 1.0 While it "would be nice" to have an IVA anywhere a Kerbal can go in a ship, its a lot of art work to do for something I would smile at briefly, and then go back out into space, where the action is. From the .90 "Beta than Ever" FAQ:

While I'd love to go "space engineer" (*there are no other games but KSP,* saying it three times as penance) and hard-attach parts in space, the work-around for getting a heavy rover into space without proc fairings (Stock game,) is to simply accept extra drag (in 1.0) affecting your launch, and "use moar boosters!" - hehe.

We have already had an official response. Here is a link to Maxmaps tweets and comments earlier in this thread.

@DBT85 - "standard fairings limit you in ways that are unrealistic" - the same can be said for the early career mode tiers, that limit players to a handful of parts, mass limit, and a rocket that can't be taller or wider than some number. If you want to get to the Mun under those restrictions, you have to do some creative thinking, experimenting, and trade off one part for another. I think that is good for the game that happens inside the SPH/VAB, and makes it a game, with a puzzle to solve. All you have after proc fairings are in, is the "getting it to fly" problem, as you describe. I think fixed fairings and cargo bays continue what is started with career mode limitations, and are the right direction for Stock game parts.

@ Jacke - HarvesteR details what we can expect, in his Overhauled Aerodynamics article. He says it is a significant amount of work, but I am meaning - that the game has Aero in it to begin with, however unrealistic it may be. I believe the work would take much longer, if they were coding in Aero for the first time.

(cough) - welcome aboard. But, feel free to bring up another topic, the change of pace might be good for us

We may have a different impression of the amount of work or challenge in delivering the list of features in HarvesteR's goal setting post for 1.0, than they do. Aero seems to me the biggest feature, occupying the first three bullet points. But it is a big change to an existing feature. Deep Space Refueling is a large feature, but according to Maxmaps squadcast comments, they aren't re-inventing the wheel, it will be based on (not a direct port) of the Karbonite mod. Economy and parts balancing will consume copious amounts of someone's favorite beverage, and could result in headaches and some hair loss, but again, this is reworking what we already have. So, if the added stuff is not as huge as creating a contracts system, kerbal skills, and upgradeable/destructible buildings - that does seem to leave room over the next couple months, for time to hammer on the features and shake bugs out of them. Devnote Tuesdays will tell us the tale. Of beta and beyond, HarvesteR wrote: (selectively quoting)

"When pigs fly!" - metaphor made real The argument that fixed-size fairings stifle imagination or limit freedom to be wildly creative: IF Squad goes with Fixed sizes, which I prefer, (and seems unlikely based on Maxmaps squadcast comment that they may go procedural out of 'necessity') - we will still see players come up with crazy, inventive designs. So many work-arounds: - suffer the drag, use more boosters to get it up there. - dock smaller pieces together, as we can do now to make huge structures. KSP offers both entertainment, and educational problem solving challenges. I do like the notion that Aero physics could put its own limits on the ease of pushing a giant beach ball up there. And that size ratio limits could be imposed. But I prefer leaving p-fairings up to the modders. The stock career mode game puts limits on craft sizes and complexity, pushing players to THINK about how to accomplish an objective, inside of those limits. I want to see that preserved as much as possible, because this isn't a space fantasy game. The real life space program is hideously expensive, and full of engineering and physics problems that need solving. I don't think KSP should leave out this fairly simple problem / puzzle-solving opportunity, by dropping in an easy-mode work around.

Addressing some comments that KSP .90 is "like an alpha." If KSP were "alpha" quality, we would be playing (actually, not enjoying playing) with un-textured cylinders labeled "fuel tank 1" attached to "engine 1" that silently rise from a big X start position, on a flat green plane, up through the big blue sky, toward the gray sphere labeled "Try to land on this without bouncing off." (If we are lucky, because the day before, the cube-space we play in was 50% gray on all sides, and you couldn't see the gray sphere, because of it.) Which brings me back to 16,000 positive comments on STEAM, (less than 300 negative) that suggest (when taken together) "there may be a few problems, but I had a great time anyway!" I'm confident KSP will survive the slings and arrows of 1.0, and put new smiles on new faces, even if some bugs still need working out. Go Squad!

Maxmaps seems to answer any financial concern (none) quite clearly, in this post earlier in this thread.

(click link: ) Where are all the Lego girls? 7-year-old wants answers

Great point! I've noticed same: always starts with a wing. And since an aero overhaul is incoming, it will be interesting to watch if this problem mysteriously disappears.

See Maxmaps tweets and comments earlier in this thread.

Yeah, I'm with you on that bug. (I'm not in that group of testers.) I'm doing lots of restarting. I guess Squad decided to let it go through and deal with it later, to meet the holiday ship date. I'll be grumbling with you if we see it in 1.0, but my fallback position is still: HarvesteR's bullet point in the goals announcement to address bugs, and 16,000 positive comments on STEAM that (taken together) say "stuff happened... but I had fun anyway!"