ShadowZone

I put a probe in a 13 by 26 km orbit around the Mun and it immediately started to degrade rather quickly. So... yeah... that needs some work, still.

Please don't return to KSP1 fairings. It's never possible to make a precise shape with them and replicating what you did once is nigh impossible. The new UI is a bit clunky, and I agree that it takes longer, but I can build fairings with a lot more confidence when it comes to more special applications that require higher degree of precision.

As your resident patch historian, allow me to present the statistics for this: Total items Community % of total 0.1.1 281 42 15% 0.1.2 173 36 21% 0.1.3 165 17 10% 0.1.4 81 9 11% Patch 4 has less than half the number of fixes than the previous one did. Does this make it worse? Hard to say, since I would assume work on the orbital decay bug must have taken quite a lot of time and developer resources. Which is why the sheer number of fixes rarely gives the full picture of how much of an improvement a patch really is. That being said, I have seen quite a few fixes for construction that will make my life a lot easier! Now to downloading it...

To expand on my initial report: It also happens when you create a subassembly with a normal Mk3 tank part and add the slanted part to one of the normal tank's nodes, then attach that tank (it being the root of the subassembly) in mirror symmetry to your main stack. And it happens when you have some parts in mirror symmetry and add the slanted tank to a node of the already mirror attached parts.

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 10.0.22621 64-Bit | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (24) | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (24340MB) | RAM: 65459 Build a rocket: central stack, side boosters in 2x symmetry. Put a new part in symmetry higher than 2x on a part of the two side boosters (in video: 8x) Use translation tool on side booster (subassembly) root part: everything connected to the booster will move correctly Use translation tool on the 8x symmetry parts on the side boosters: 8x parts will move correctly Agan, use translation tool on side booster root part --> symmetry for 8x attached parts is now broken Example workspace is attached, also video of the bug happening. Included Attachments: BUG129.mp4 BUG129_symmetrybreaker1.zip

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 10.0.22621 64-Bit | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (24) | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (24340MB) | RAM: 65459 When surface attaching RF-AD-SL 2500 (Mk3 to MD adapter) in mirror symmetry, the part supposed to be in symmetry ... isn't (see screenshot). It does attach correctly when using radial symmetry. This does not happen with other slanted parts (MD>SM, LG>Mk2). Included Attachments:

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 10.0.22621 64-Bit | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (24) | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (24340MB) | RAM: 65459 I was working on the craft in the .zip file. I wanted to replace the existing SRB, so I created a subassembly made of one SRB and added 6 more in symmetry to that. I then wanted to attach this subassembly to an engine plate attached to the main vehicle in 2x symmetry. Then the game crashed. I tried to reproduce this issue but was not able to do so unfortunately. Included Attachments: BUG127-GameCrash_logs.zip

Thanks. It appears there are multiple ways to trigger this glitch. Interesting. Annoying, but interesting

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 10.0.22621 64-Bit | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (24) | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (24340MB) | RAM: 65459 Have a vessel that is just a SM size probe core sitting on the runway and another vehicle in orbit of another planet. Start with the vehicle in orbit. Go to map view, right click on Kerbin and focus on the craft on the runway. --> Some weird Ap/Pe graphics glitches will appear and persist even if you change focus again. Workaround: exit map view and get back to map view again. The glitch is gone. Included Attachments: BUG126.mp4 BUG126_logs.zip

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 10.0.22621 64-Bit | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (24) | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (24340MB) | RAM: 65459 Build a vehicle with a "Trumpet" engine and get it to orbit. The engine must be active = nozzle extended. Then, switch to any other vessel via tracking station. Return to the vehicle with the "Trumpet". The Nozzle will show as retracted, but the engine is still active and can be used. This might also happen to the "Cornet" or "Tuba". I haven't tested this yet. Included Attachments: BUG125.mp4 BUG125_logs.zip

Hotfix summer is in full swing! Congrats to the team for solving one of the most pressing issues for players.

First hotfix since KSP2 went early access. Congrats!

There is no option to set any control authority for airbrakes.

That's... not true.

Reported Version: v0.1.3 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Microsoft Windows 11 Pro 10.0.22621 64-Bit | CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X 12-Core Processor (24) | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 (24340MB) | RAM: 65459 Attach an AIRBRAKE to any part. Launch the vehicle. Press Q/E for rolling. Result: AIRBRAKES will deploy with the roll input and even exceed their angle limit doing so. See video and bug package file for more details. Included Attachments: BUG124.mp4 BUG124_logs.zip

From my first tryout, the airbrakes deploy when you perform a roll maneuver, even below the usual limit of 0°. In my opinion definitely a bug. They don't move when you pitch or yaw.

Yes, this is how it behaves. Real world RL10 extends and then fires and has no option to shut off, so KSP2 is already more advanced

Statistics! While the list is rather long, the total amount of fixes is the least of the so far three patches. Also, the amount of community reported items has sunk to ten percent this time around. Neither of these things is necessarily bad, because some of the items in 0.1.3 might have been a lot more effort than some in 0.1.1 I am not trying to say anything, I just like numbers Total items Community % of total 0.1.1 281 42 15% 0.1.2 173 36 21% 0.1.3 165 17 10% Also: AIRBRAKES! Be right back, gotta try a few things...

Long fix list is long. Where are my reading glasses?

While @Heretic391 went big in the post above, I went the completely opposite direction:

Finally got to reading this, real life has kept me away from KSP (1 and 2) a lot lately... Thanks for the update and the details given (as far as you could give them). Really looking forward to testing the new "brass band" engines, those small nozzles for thrust vector control on the Tuba are a nice touch!

Replying to both of you in one go: For me the forum does not offer functionality I would need like file upload for screenshots, log files and videos. Yes, I can host them somewhere else, but this adds another layer of complexity. Also, I specifically asked via my "privileged line of communication" as you put it what the best way of sending the bugs would be and the answer was that there were "ten bug intake sources" and I should not worry about which one I used. Personally I see this as an inefficient way of doing things because if you have to consolidate all those incoming sources it eats up resources you could spend on other work. I at one point contemplated creating a public Google Sheet and put all my reported issues in there and make it so people could publicly add their own bugs and comments to existing ones and vote on reported issues. But since I already have a day job this was just not in the cards. And I had hopes a public bug tracker could be quickly provided.

As someone who asked for a public facing bug tracker basically since the game came out, I want to add something to the discussion and I also have a few other more general issues on my chest. You want people to submit more meaningful error reports instead of "it sucks" and that's absolutely the right call. But there's another side to this coin: keeping people engaged and willing to do so. Me personally, I have done what you requested since KSP2 has hit Early Access. As of today, I have submitted 122 bug reports, most of them including video of the occurrence, log files, save file and description of what happens and what I would like to happen. Some of them even include analysis of log and save files. For the vast majority of these 122 bug reports I have no idea what has happened to them. Have all of them been even read? Have they been acknowledged as a real bug or am I "holding it wrong" (© Steve Jobs)? Has there been a decision to fix or not fix them? Did I waste my personal time on reproducing, analyzing and reporting these bugs because they have already been found by a professional QA team that does this for a living? Yes, there has been some feedback on some of my reported issues. But overall, it feels like all I managed to do was just screaming into the dark. The entire process after "bug report sent" is a total mystery. The only tangible feedback are the patch notes and of course the game itself. "Did they fix issue xyz? Oh no, they didn't... bummer..." The lack of transparency in this regard has become very frustrating for me. Positive effects of a public facing bug tracker (which you, Darrin, probably are all aware of, just listing them for the public's sake): It helps to prevent duplicate reports which reduces the QA team's overhead and the customer's time needed to report ("Oh, it's already there, great, no need to spend minutes on writing it all up.") People can track the status of their issue and don't have to guess whether or not the next update will fix a specific problem that plagues them You mentioned frequency vs. severity: With a "I have the same problem" button you can gauge frequency of an issue and can sort everything better Users are forced to fill in the necessary information you require because of mandatory fields in the report Everyone has a somewhat clear picture of the size of the mountain the team has to move to make the game more playable Unfortunately I have a suspicion that the people in corporate have no interest in the last item. Even though time and time again it has been proven that transparency and honesty in business increases customer loyalty, especially when we're talking long term. And the Kerbal franchise is a long term loyalty thing. Next year will be a decade since I have started my YouTube channel focusing 95% on KSP (and KSP2). And the game already had a strong community before I even noticed it. If these corporate decision makers are worried about the game's public perception, I have a Steam review page to show them. Oh and also the old KSP bug tracker which was always filled to the brim. Didn't seem to harm the game's success though. I am now shifting away from QA and bug tracking towards a more general problem with communication around KSP2: In the Early Access announcement video last October, @Nate Simpson stressed how important feedback from the community is to make Early Access work. And how this should be a dialog. Right now it feels a bit like two monologues. Us players screaming at your black box bug backlog. And you developers talking back at us through patch notes and blogs. Lots of talking at each other but little of talking to each other. I blame the people putting the muzzles on you. Those people running around with all those slick corporate communication guidelines that result in Teflon coated sound bytes and meaningless phrases. Whoever asked you to remove mention of @linuxgurugamer's bug reporter script from the dev diary should stop following the corporate checklist and start acting like a human being. Yeah yeah, I know the spiel of "for legal reasons", I've been part of a Fortune 150 company myself long enough. But seriously, if you say "hey, some of the best reports we got were from this community tool, we love our modders and can't wait what else they will create once the game is in a more stable state", in no sliver of reality would that in any way shape or form be grounds for any type of lawsuit. If THAT'S your (you, the corporate communications person) fear, you should stop all mention of community created vehicles on social media. You should stop sharing videos and screenshots right now. Because by the same logic that somebody could interpret that LGG's bug reporter might be your own tool, people could also interpret that the vehicles you share are stock vehicles and could sue you if they don't find them in the game. Sorry for being harsh right now, but this is not work that you are doing. It is business theater. You are actively making the situation worse because this type of behavior is alienating a community that was built across a decade on trust and transparency. The original KSP was successful because it broke the mould. You will not be able to repeat this success if you try to constrain development with old school corporate thinking. Innovation and creativity need room to breathe. Corporate guidelines tend to suffocate them instead, because it can only work according to a strict pattern. TL;DR: Stop talking at us, start talking to us! And to circle back to this thread: Thanks @Darrin H for the post, the info you were able to share and your willingness to engage with us in the replies. Best of luck with the mountain of work still ahead! I apologize for any errors or weirdly worded sentences. English is not my native language and it's 3:00am right now.

I have to say, I had a similar feeling this week. I laid down KSP2 for almost two weeks to get into a fresh mindset. The bugs hit harder and the wonkyness was more annoying (especially noodle rockets, good grief...) And of course I couldn't take it easy, I attempted an Eve return mission. Will talk about more on that soon on my channel, because in my opinion the game really makes it unnecessarily hard at the moment. I did land though. Or rather, splash down.

Thanks for the update, there's just one thing I would like to know more about: Are we talking every two months instead of every month? Quarterly? Yearly? "When it's done!"( © John Carmack)?