Arch3rAc3

Squad is still the main developer and the responsible for the game in the end, it makes no sense. They are also the ones charging for these basic uncomplete features. If we could somehow install mods, I could have MANY more launch sites without having to pay for a useless eye-candy DLC just so I can have that. What's even the point of a Munar launchsite. They might as well take it out and I wouldn't care. It just breaks all the fun, challenge and immersion for me. I'd rather go through the work of creating a Munar refuel station and manually landing rockets there before an interplatenary jorney than launching from the Mun. Not to say there's a cheat menu. And yes, it is a DLC for everyone, except you guys haven't been waiting +3 years for a playable game after you bought it and you can have many more launch sites than what comes with the DLC for free. I wouldn't count it +1... I don't recall saying 5 minutes, I did say "quickly" though - and to be fair, it would indeed be a lot quicker than waiting for the Devs to implement even half of what a modder could do. Not to say, once again, that through a mod I'd have many more Kerbin launch sites and would totally rather donate to such modder than pay for an eye-candy DLC for a game with so many problems still. Who knows... 10 more dollars for some paintings and uncomplete features (+ easily noticeable bugs for free). Fair point. Although they surely could have done a better job than just saying "go to www.kerbalspaceprogram.com". Except PC players don't have to move the cursor through a stick that is barely accurate, don't have to struggle so much with "crew cabins" action appearing over the cursor pretty much everytime you have to click over an object - which also makes use of the same key you have to interact with objects - and even for a Medium-end PC KSP is much more optimized. Except, I have done that. Many, many times. Only for them to be rated as Low priority, bug fixing process almost never going over 10%, and then resume on still having players reporting the same exact multiple-times reported bugs even as "bug-fixing" updates are launched... Although some ridiculously more than others depending on the plataform you play in - which also seems to correlate with how much the devs actually care about. I'm not making these texts as a clueless rant just because I think it's cool. I have been trying to support this game for +3 years, at every moment thinking "finally, the Devs are going to fix it, they actually care about it". Only to be let down half a dozen times. It gets to a point when you're done, especially when profitting from a DLC seems to be a bigger priority than making the game more playable.

Yes, doesn't mean I agree with as well. Especially when - again - a modder could have done it with many more launch sites, taking a lot less time and for free (for who I'd gladly donate to, instead of paying the Devs after they delivered a broken game over and over again, without any consideration).

Lovely! By "playing" the game for just 1 minute I have already found another bug, although small, easily detectable. If you open the Tracking Station and click the "toggle flags" button, the KSC symbol will dissapear from the map (even if you toggle flags back). That shows how much attention is going towards Enhanced Edition. And nice job removing the KSPedia app. You then tell players that somehow this makes it more convenient for them (who knows how), and you direct them to www.kerbalspaceprogram.com - very informative. Boy, this update is looking better and better... I'm amazed they didn't charge for this as well.

Updates or milking? While in the PC we could have many more launch sites, done so much better by a modder; in consoles the Devs pretend to care by asking us to pay 10$ in a DLC for a half broken game so we can have a super basic feature such as more launch sites. Lovely! And there will be people buying this with a smile on their face...

Ok, this is outrageous to say the least! And this is also not a suggestion per se, although there's no better forum section to post this. Why in the world would someone have to pay $10 (38BRL here, which is really not something I can just waste from my wallet) for extra launch centers?! This is a simple feature that should be in the core game already, mods in the pc can quickly fix this, yet you guys - the Devs - have the audacity of charging us even for this after delivering us a broken game over and over and over again?! I have bought the game in its unplayable state back in 2016. I had to wait for an year just for a response from you guys and plus another year for you to try and fail delivering a fix. Then I had to wait even a bit more with Enhanced Edition because even that was broken; not to say that, by some reports, even some serious bugs - like the stuck on ladder one - haven't been fixed AS OF YET. But instead of properly fixing the game, you guys rather charge for basic features that a modder alone could have done better, faster and for free. This is a joke, right!? What is next for consoles? 5$ for basic Delta-V calculation feature (which won't even come near to what modders managed to accomplish with Kerbal engineer)? 1$ for enhanced UI with an AGL altimeter toggle function? 2$ for an Apoapsis/Periapsis UI indicator without having to open the map view? 15$ for a fix/workaround of heavy performance impact around space stations/ground bases??? All this time waiting for this update, but it's so likely that not even 1/3 of the bugs were properly fixed... boy, at least we got the "Super useful" Kerbal parachutes for free (that is, if you manage, in time, to click over the falling Kerbal with your cursor controlled by an analogue stick while the game is running at 19FPS and everything is shaking...) So much milking... We would have a much more functional and complete game if we had modders working in the console version instead of "Devs".

Oh well, so they really haven't even fixed 1/3 of the bugs even with the delay...

What update? Has the one with the story DLC came out already or do you mean the one before? Because if it's the latter, it's known the bug is not fixed as stated by the Devs.

It might be better for him to simply upvote the already existing upvoted-most report. Creating more and more reports may only clutter it, not to say the Devs are already aware of this issue. What he should also do is commenting in the already existing bug report any new information. That does not mean it ONLY happens when you transmit science from modules that are only restorable with a scientist. For all we know so far, any science module, when transmitting science through the blue transmit button, will cause this issue! It doesn't seem to matter if it's a restorable module or not, as far as we know, that's why I asked you that. We gotta be careful when submitting bug reports and be as detailed as possible, any tiny thing might be the cause for the bug. Saying incorrectly that something happens "ONLY if [...]" may make finding the bug only harder.

Does this bug only happens when transmitting science from restorable modules then?

Because you didn't try transmitting science. Before going EVA do an experiment and click the blue transmit button, then see the magic happens when going EVA.

Ok, apparently I can't quote and type, even the forums are bugged, lovely! About the cheats menu, if you just toggle it on it will disable all achievements on the xbox. It's so frustating, while the cheats menu might be the only way to actually work around some bugs, especially when playing on hard mode, you can't use it if you hope to unlock the achievements.

I also don't like jettisoning the engines like that. My initial idea was recovering it, so I had parachutes strapped and all, and only later noticed that the game causes objects in atmosphere to be destroyed when too far from the player. I was thinking of having only one Reliant (as the only reason for the Swivel was the vectoring, but my ship is light and doesn't really require it), so I wouldn't have to jettison engines. But I'd have to check the TWR and if it comes too low I'd add solid boosters instead. Might do it later.

Alright. I used to think that drag played a way bigger role, especially if I was close to burning. As for the Delta-V, is this one accurate even for PC current version: ? Thanks.

Well, this is a bit embarassing, didn't notice I had made so many mistakes there (apparently this is the problem of trying to do KSP math at 00:30AM with coffee being the only thing keeping you up). @OhioBob Right, I don't know why I placed s² the first time, and just kept copying the units incorrectly. Correct! 167.9 was the Thrust. Apparently I calculated Delta-V1 correctly for ASL, but for Delta-V2 I used the engine's thrust instead of Isp. Again, I done the same mistake and you are correct. I did not give you the mass for I thought there were too many numbers here already, but it's M4=5696kg and M5=3696kg. The resulting Delta-V3 was ~1463.8m/s , which does make a lot of sense now. This wiki page (https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Advanced_Rocket_Design) at the "Delta-V map" section states that a launch to 100km Kerbin Orbit requires 4700m/s. Applying a Hohmann Transfer to increase my orbit from 100km to 200km requires 144.88m/s; summing it all up to 4844.88m/s. It did feel a little bit too high, but I can't tell what's wrong here. Perhaps the numbers on the wiki are somewhat off Should I do all the calculations with vacuum Isp and use this equation then: Because I'm not sure where else I'd apply this. Thanks! This was a bit confusing while I was typing for here where I live we use commas as dots (decimals) and dots as commas when doing math. Therefore when I was calculating I'd write M1=12,345t for example, which would be correct here (345 would be decimals), but incorrect there. I ended up taking the comma out and didn't pay much mind to the tons there since it wouldn't make a difference right now (although it was incorrect). So I shouldn't pay much mind to the great ball of fire going towards space? Hadn't thought of it like that, it made a lot of sense! Thanks!

Hello! Firstly, I know questions like this one have already been made both in and out of the forums before, yet every thread I found and read do not fix my problem or give me an idea of what I'm doing wrong. Also, sorry if this ends up a bit too long and technical, I want to try and make it as clear and detailed as possible, especially when explaining the math I did, so it doesn't confuse or give the reader a headache. So... I finally decided to play KSP [more] seriously, disabling "revert flight" and trying to calculate the rocket performance and everything else before launch to minimize failures. I'm playing the Enhanced Version for the Xbox, which should be pretty much a 1.2 stock for PC. The rocket I have is comprised of two stages: the first one has 3 engines, a center Swivel one (with 2 FL-T800s on top), and two radially mounted Reliant engines in an asparagus setting (so they have one FL-T800 on top each, with both of these fuel tanks feeding into the center one directly above the Swivel - this way, once the radial tanks are expended, they will be jettisoned with the Reliant engines). The second stage is the orbital stage, having a single LV-909 Terrier with a FL-T400 on top (will talk about it later on). The goal of this rocket is to carry scientific equipment to a space station at a 200km circular orbit over Kerbin, where it's currently being assembled for a mission to Minmus. The problem I initially has is that the Delta-V calculation I done for the first stage gave me a result of ~1899m/s², which theoretically should not have been enough to allow me to leave Kerbin's atmosphere (as "Delta-V out" of Kerbin is 2500m/s²). Yet, I managed to dock with the intended station with about 60% of fuel remaining in the second stage (no cheats involved, I swear). I've done all the calculations based on what's available at wiki.kerbalspaceprogram, making use of the "Advanced Rocket Design" and "Cheat Sheet" topics. Will go over the math now: Starting up, I calculated the average Isp of the three engines at sea Level, which was pretty much: (F1+F2+F3/(F1/Isp1)+(F2/Isp2)+(F3/Isp3) being F=Thrust at sea level. This gave me an AvgIsp of 261 (which I called Isp1). Right after, I got the total mass of the craft (M0=28556t) and the first dry mass (aka: the mass with empty radial tanks before dropping them and the Reliants; which I called M1=20556). I also calculated the new mass right after dropping the radial tanks and with full center tanks and swivel engine (M2=16646); and dry mass for empty center tanks (M3=8646). Based on this, I calculated 2 delta-Vs for the first stage: Delta-V1, while both the Reliants and Swivel were firing; and Delta-V2, after the Reliants were dropped and only the Swivel was firing and taking fuel from it's own tanks now. So, Delta-V1 = Isp1(261)*g[9,81]*ln(M0/M1)[0,32] obtaining a value of ~819m/s². Did the same for Delta-V2, calculating the Isp2 for the Swivel only part of the flight, for which I got an Isp2 of ~167.9; then Delta-V2 of 1070m/s² I then made the sum between both Delta-Vs, obtaining that nasty odd value of ~1889m/s². As for the second stage, it gave me a Delta-V value of 276.6m/s², adding the whole sum to 2175m/s² (which shouldn't even be enough to take me out of Kerbin's atmosphere, let alone docking. The whole flight from Launch to a circular 200km orbit should require ~4844.88m/s², more than twice what I had! Some thought and considerations (and questions): 1. I know the Delta-V I calculated is lower than the real Delta-V, since, for all the first stage engines, I only accounted for the Sea Level Isp and ignored the Vacuum Isp - while in reality the higher I went, the more Isp I'd have, thus increasing my Delta-V - although I don't believe it would have such an impact on the Delta-V. 2. I tried being efficient during the atmospheric flight, avoiding overspeed and unnecessary drag, which caused me to lower the throttle quite a bit (especially while the 3 engines were firing) and in turn increase the engine-on time, resulting in more Isp since I was ever higher with the engines on. This goes back to point 1, since I only considered Isp for Sea Level even though half of my fight happened at high altitude / low pressure / higher Isp environments. Could this also justify the Delta-V discrepancy? 3. Is there a way I can calculate Isp at an specific altitude so I can be more accurate (instead of only taking into account the Vacuum Isp for the 2nd/orbital stage and ASL Isp for the first stage)? 4. I tried repeating the math but assuming I'd not fire the Swivel until the Reliants were dropped. In the end it gave me a noticeably higher Isp and Delta-V, although still not as high as theoretically necessary. This is kinda odd though, shouldn't firing all engines together but feeding only from the radial tanks be more effective? Thanks. Would love to hear what I've been doing wrong and hope I didn't give too much headache to people trying to read this. (And yes, I'm super jealous of you PC players with all the fancy Kerbal Engineer calculating stuff!) Cheers.

Hey. Having some small problems with the green "crew hatch" function that pops up whenever you have the cursor close to the Pod door. More often than not I'm trying to click on an antenna, experiment or even the pod itself for crew report and I end up opening the crew hatch (transfer) menu as the game assumes that I want to do it whenever I have my cursor near it. It also seems to happen when I'm trying to click on an object that's on the opposite side of the Pod door, so having or not an object between the cursor and the Pod door doesn't stop the "crew hatch" text from appearing. I'd suggest that either we have another button to open the crew hatch menu (it's the same button to interact with every other object on the craft at the moment) or that we disable this function by complete, accessing the crew transfer window either through an App to the right of the screen or through the Pod menu itself (being together with "crew report" and all the other actions). Thanks.

Hello. I'm going through some problems here and wonder if someone can clear it up. I'm playing in career mode and have the basic Action Groups unlocked (Stage, gear, light...), but not the custom ones (1, 2, 3...). What I've been doing is mapping some functions to these basic actions as it is a bit hard and annoying to try and click on that tiny object with the controller stick while everything is shaking and FPS is down. The problem I'm having though is that some actions, such as Extend Solar Panel on the OX-4L 1x6 Photovoltaic Panels, are not mappable. That is, if I try mapping this action to the "Gear" action group nothing happens. The "Extend Solar Panel" function goes to the "Group Actions" window when I click it and then quickly goes back to the "Selection" window. Is this a intended feature since I don't have the custom action groups unlocked or is it a bug? In the case it's the latter, anyone knows if there's already a bug report, for I couldn't find it on the bug tracker. Thanks, and hopefully it's not too late to let the Devs aware of this problem!

The bugtracker also allows you to create suggestions, so I was wondering.

Hello. I noticed that if you switch to the advanced control mode (turning the orange surface control indicator needles into blue needles), you can use it as a trim - which works a lot better than the old trim mode. There is a problem with this though, once you set the trim as you want, if you switch back to flight mode (turning the needles back to orange) the control surfaces will reset back to center, basically overriding your set trim. Therefore you can't fly the craft after trimming it - assuming this advanced mode was supposed to be used as a trim. Would it be possible that you guys added a feature so that when you switch back to normal flight mode, the control surfaces center is where you set the trim to? For example, I set the elevator blue needle 1 dot over the center, therefore when I switch back to flight mode and let go of my control axis, the orange needle should rest at that +1 dot position. We would also need to be able to reset this trim (setting the blue needles back to center with a single button combination). Since we already have a "reset trim" function in the controls (I believe it's LB+A on the Xbox), it could also be used for this. Thanks Ps.: Should I post this to the bugtracker as a suggestion? I'm afraid Devs won't read it here.

Have they fixed this yet? There has been 3 months already and the progress is still at 10%.

It's pretty annoying that I have to do that. I took so much time doing everything for the 3rd time just to have it all lost due to a bug. Don't even feel like starting another career anymore. Doubt the Devs would let this go on with the PC version.

Haha. They can't even fix the console version, let alone allow mods for it. Almost 1 year since "Enhanced Edition" came out and I'm again and still stuck on career mode due to unfixed bugs.

I see that after +1 month the EVA issue is still here, therefore I still can't progress in my career because my key Kerbals are stuck on the craft lander on the Mun. So yeah. I'm not even holding my breath anymore. The devs already made it clear with all this time that this game version on Console is not going anywhere. Even the enhanced version looks like a placeholder still. I'll be very surprised if one of the Devs even make an effort to read your post here though.

Perhaps it's because there isn't a clear reproduction step besides getting on the ladder which should be clear enough already? No one seems to have any clear idea of what excatly leads to the problem, it just suddently happens. They might as well do personal anecdotes telling what's happening and what they were doing instead of nothing.

The duplicate was meant so I could report the bug with a higher priority. In my understanding, low priority would be something like small graphical or sound problems, not a gameplay gamestopping problem like this. But apparently, one can't set the priority while reporting the bug anymore, and I also can't delete my duplicate. Another problem about this report you linked is that it specifies the PS4 version and also seems to report 3 different problems. While they might be linked to one another, I've only come to experience the latter one (EVA on ladder). I haven't had the edit parts in VAB problem.