.png.8a02dc4b5b2b6bbe9d80ea0f75bcf7d3.png)
Violent Jeb
-
Posts
300 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Violent Jeb
-
-
i'm not defensive, 98% of the game works and you insist on playing the one of apx 3 things that aren't working, when you have a version that does work.
-
15 minutes ago, _Aramchek_ said:
Solution..devs need to fix the game.
they JUST talked like 4 posts ago about how its more than likely an issue with the engine and not the game itself. Rage much?
If you want to play a working version: it's called 1.0.5. This version is clearly unacceptable to you. If you read the devnotes, you will see that they are working on fixing the game. So this post amounts to "i'm sad and want them to fix it faster".
edit: you can even pretend that the devs stopped working on ksp alltogether and never grab another update beyond 1.0.5, if that is your perogitive. they really owe us nothing.
-
Windows 8 64 bit 2gb vram 8gb bla bla bla
I get the exploding legs, but I also blow all my legs fantastically if I extend/retract them while already on the surface. Before they were usually able to "lift" a craft off the ground.
But at least they're not sliding around on other bodies. I've been accustomed to hitting f5 before going extra vehicular for a LONG time now, so maybe thats why i'm not as angry.
-
I believe theres a bug tracker with a few thousand bugs reported. From the top of my head, I imagine the issue you described is already reported, but you should check.
Kerbals have always been a little touchy getting in and out of crafts, and getting onto ladders. It's been a bit worse with 1.1 so far.
Always quicksave before going EVA or getting back on a ladder. Usually its a fluke and won't happen again.
Sometimes, the problem is made worse if objects are close to the door, or there's something big on top of the pod. Just some ideas for you to try
-
5 hours ago, Jaeleth said:
in terms of game efficiency, it is better just to build a huge craft with big fuel tanks, isru, drills, nuke gens and or solar gens and land it in one piece, drill and back to orbit when filled, to refuel other ships, than having all smaller ships landing on the ground base.
but they look pretty, ground bases
Agree, but It's always going to be cheaper to keep the ISRU in orbit that way. If you do that though, you need to be reasonably confident as to the fuel requirements, and it makes the craft design a tad more complicated. You could also just have a fuel rig which brings processed materials to orbit and acts as an orbital fueling station.
I just think of my mining rig as a orbit capable ground base. I like to keep it capable of ferrying payloads to the surface too
-
Great devnotes. To the point, well thought out, and it almost sounds like we have been heard with all our banging about.
Update 1.1.x is going to be a good one.
1.2 however, seems to be an acronym for, "update unity, break everything, add a bunch of stuff" (which is all fine), and therefore I am super happy you're working on 1.1.3 first.
Unity 5 launched in mar 15', (..just after our 1.0 iirc)
5.1 in june 15'
5.2 in sept 15'
5.3 in dec 15'
I don't know if ksp is running 5 or 5.1 or 5.3 but if you can get orbits and wheels sorted ultimately that is of little consequence to me. keep on doing the things! -
between 10-50 tonnes, you can't beat the LVN which is almost 3 times more efficient than anything else IIRC.
LVN only uses liquid fuel, so you can ditch your oxidizer if you have tanks with both. The limiting factor is the low thrust, which means you'll usually need at least 2 to land on something as large as duna. Anything larger or with more atmosphere and the lvn isn't going to be a good match.
So, they're great for interplanetary stages, or for lander on small-to-mid sized planets. An interplanetary LVN stage can usually get any payload pretty well anywhere in the system
It took me a good year to figure out how to use them effectively.
Now, My 18t Terrier munlander can achieve ~3500 dv with LFO
vs
My 25t LVN munlander which has more than double the range with ~7000 dv with liquid fuel only. This machine can easily land and re-orbit at least 3 times around the mun.I strongly encourage trying to get used to them. It's one of the only ways to get crews round trip to places like moho without ISRU or some other very complex designs.
-
proabably worth mentioning that timewarp will likely stop this from happening. If you can remember to increase speed to 5x when you're just sitting around admiring your work. It'll be nice when the patch comes.
-
You will be missed, good luck on whatever happens next
-
Just going to put it out there that conversely^, despite the bugs and other issues i've discussed i'm very satisfied with 1.1.2.
I've got flags on Duna, Ika, Moho, and crafts en route to the others. ISRU is operational on Ike, and I have SCANsat maps everywhere.
If you view the game as still in EA (that's what I do), it's plain to see that 1.1.2 is categorically better than 1.0.5 (which was better than .90), save for general instability, the orbits, and the wheels. Nonwithstanding the instability for those experiencing it, life in 1.1.2 is very possible if you don't try to utilize the features that aren't working, ie, no wheels, and nothing that requires high orbital accuracy, such as remotetech, synchronous orbits or comms networks. (Jeb would also like me to mention that we've had a few flags tip over, which he insists is a travesty)
I can't speak for a body the size of jool (yet), but the orbital decay at kerbin is such that it would take hours of realtime focus to decay sufficiently for a 75x75km orbit to result in re-entry. I have docked literally dozens of times in LKO in 1.1.2, with little practical difference compared to 1.0.5. Re-entry is exciting again now, and everything else gameplay wise is [very slowly] coming together and interacting with a nice balance.
very excited for the next patch, to see what improvements come.
-
At this rate I imagine never. But i'm quite sure you're not supposed to ask.
On 5/26/2016 at 1:59 PM, insert_name said:It's called 1.0.5
It's funny that you think 1.0.5 didn't have any problems. Not only that but with constant feature creep the old versions which you term stable are always missing content and features because they never stop adding them. Not to put to fine a point on it, but since not even the physical laws of the solar system are stable, it makes little sense for me to play and practice in a version I already know is going to be fundamentally different in craft design and flight characteristics, even compared to what we have in 1.1.2. But its cool that you're okay with waiting years to have a stable version of the existing features.
-
On 5/25/2016 at 9:16 AM, Alshain said:
That would be fine if this intermediate release were to make the game playable, but the wheels are one of the biggest issues. So we get to sit around and wait for them to release 1.1.3, then sit around some more, wait for 1.2, then sit around some more and wait for 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3 to fix all the new wonderful bugs... assuming they don't decide fix those in 1.3.
Can I like this post more than once?
This game may be more or less playable for more or less people, but it is UNFATHOMABLE that this is a long released title experiencing these issues. What we're talking about here is a scale of updates which are on the scale of years, which is an unbelievable proposition IM[worthless]O. How many years is it going to take to fix the bugs? People want to play this game now..? is that not okay? Are we supposed to pass down this game to our firstborns so that they can enjoy it on our behalf?
I can't think of another release title that ever took years to fix problems, or wasn't just abandoned. Just my thoughts. I can bring to mind many titles that were seriously messed up at launch, with patches within a few days/weeks, but there's literally another 6 months of waiting for proper fixes to a finished released game ... wat. and yes i know unity bla bla bla, so why not just keep the pre-release available for all users while the state of EA/instability carries on for the rest of 2016?There should at least be a stable release somewhere that people can rely on.
-
+1. After substantial experimentation i daresay the landing gear has become self aware. 9/10 times it doesn't work and you can't even liftoff without spinning or flipping. after making minute adjustments, changing wheel positions, etc, the 10th time you will get off the ground, but can't land without losing a wheel or two, even in near-perfect circumstances.
Then you try again and the plane won't get off the ground.
Is there any official word from unity regarding wheels? surely KSP isn't the only game built on unity that uses wheels? what is the typical turnaround on unity updates/patches? is this high priority for unity? is that likely to be where a legitimate fix comes from? so many questions, so little devnotes.
-
I'm just worried that if the devnotes were put off for a month, that any patches are a long way off.
-
I just made it to duna and back with a 2 person craft in 1.1.2. Had enough fuel to hop to second biome, reach orbit, detour to ike, land, hop a second ike biome, return to orbit, then transfer back to kerbin. 5k science and 3 years later we are safe and sound.
Career grind typically keeps me from getting interplanetary for reasons i've discussed in other threads,
QuoteThe writing is literally on the wall. You must get 1220 Science before you even have practical interplanetary capabilities. Emphasis in bold. Sure, you can stack 50 tiny fuel tanks on whatever engine you happen to have unlocked and send an ugly monstrosity to another planet, but you're just going to dispose of that craft and be forced to launch another a more competent craft to the same interplanetary location at a later time. This just adds more to the existing grind problem.
I could play sandbox but i genuinely want this to be a management sim experience. For the singular reason of how prohibitive the career mode is, I believe that people aren't leaving the K_soi.
In order of significance, here are my list of probable reasons why
- Career mode grind
- Node difficulty. Using stock tools it is immensely challenging to get an encounter. Without the proper settings, you can be within 1% of an encounter and you won't even see it. That's very prohibitive. Even scrolling the man.node can't get you the precision you need. Its not fun to spend 10+ minutes setting up a maneuver node. The worst part is that the most efficient transfers and slingshots are even more complicated to set/determine your trajectory.
- Time lapse. In most games I feel like i'm "wasting time" when going interplanetary, like i should be getting science from the moons or working on mining or station operations. Sometimes this results in a situation where you have a craft en route and you end up doing other things while you wait. Problem being that when you get back to your ship to come in for orbit, you have a bunch of new tech and your interplanetary craft is either not optimized or its missing something. From what i understand the game time can be exceptionally long now so i'm trying to work past this hang up by simply running the complete missions as they arise. Something about the window planners being 10yrs in advance that makes you feel like you're missing stuff if you don't do it all right away.
- lack of dv indications with regards to craft or target. It kind of sucks not knowing if you're actually going to make it. On pure stock, getting to duna and not being able to land or return is an emotional event. You spend lots of time on designing a mission and it doesn't work bc of dv, it's discouraging.
- complete lack of anything to do. If you could establish launch sites from other planets, or there was more flexibility to base building, it would give you something to do. Getting to a new body is immensely satisfying, but once you've landed, placed your flag, ran your science and played with the gravity, there is almost no reason to ever return there again.
-
I feel like I mightve seen it happen, but i have MJ and my orbits read rock-solid, they don't move.
I've spent time with the station, I've done multiple docking operations and sat with it over entire orbits, so it must be only intermittent on my install.? i'm only mentioning because its really not game breaking for me at the moment.
How about under physics warp? Going to do some testing tonight.
-
10 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:
Put a ship into orbit. turn off the engine and don't time warp. Go to map mode and right click your periapsis. Watch it go down and down and down.
Happens in every orbit, at every height, of every world, with every ship.
Does this only happen while you have right clicked on the periapsis? I left a station on a 75km orbit, i left and took a different ship round trip to duna.. when i got back the station was right where I left it almost 3 years later, doesn't seem to have any noticeable decay with this operation, but i'm interested in avoiding this bug.
-
At the very least, there should be an option or mod to rename the star to Kerbol. Because whatever its name is, it isn't the "sun".
OUR sun is called the sun. No other bodies in the game share names with our solar system, except for maybe mun but that's a play on the name of our moon, or the kerbals much like us didn't know of any other "muns" until much later in their history. However, this is contradicted, as I believe the in game texts refers to these satellites as "moons".
Therefore, there is no precedent in the game to call the star the "Sun", minus the fact that it is presently named that. But what are the odds that a separate civilization in a galaxy far far away names their star the exact same thing as we do. Makes no sense just from a cultural perspective. I guess you could say they seem to have very similar spacefairing equipment/architecture, i can't argue that either.
21 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:- If you pronounce "Kerbol" with a short O it sounds too close to "Kerbal."
- If you pronounce it with a long O it sounds like a yearly college sports event. The Ker-Bowl!
If you pronounce sun with a short o it sounds like son, and in our solar system people have made many religions based on the confusion.
Since bol is much less likely to be inferred as the bowl of anything, I think its fine. Even if the kerbals or our players do get confused, i'd say its okay. In fact, Kerbol even looks like a bowl as viewed from directly above, so there's that. worst case scenario, it would also give the Kerbals something to pray to, the great bowl.
Just throwing my hat in the ring with Kerbol
-
It'd be neat, if like an RPG, your space program had "starting attributes", in the form of x number of unlocked tech nodes, and y number of upgraded buildings, so that you could form a "specialization", as it were. Then you wouldn't need to remember, "oh hey I need to tweak my funds to exactly this and my science to exactly this, in order to make this game not grindy but still experience the neat funds indicator as it wobbles close enough to 0 to give me the fear of god."
Harder "difficulty" (more grind), just subtract from x & y.
But yeah, I don't recommend a playthrough with 10% anything.
I've been playing this game for apx 3 years and for the "fun" in 1.1.2 i started a hard career, just to confirm to myself that (again, and still) it is truly awful.
Even using normal difficulty, I find it takes not reasonably less than a dozen launches in order to go interplanetary with even a semblance of a ship with decent parts.
Retractable solar panels (to reduce solar panel spam): 300 science
Nuclear engines: 300 science
Docking port: 160 science
Lander can : 160 science
Seismic Accelerometer: 300 science (eg: capacity to do all science in a region at one time, minus losses)Not including previous tiers: 1220 Science. Even opting out of some tech this is bare bones interplanetary and requires a good 850 science. And this doesn't even consider ISRU or rovers or anything else you might have liked to do with this video game, bc instead you're rolling around at KSC for 0.5 science.
The writing is literally on the wall. You must get 1220 Science before you even have practical interplanetary capabilities. Emphasis in bold. Sure, you can stack 50 tiny fuel tanks on whatever engine you happen to have unlocked and send an ugly monstrosity to another planet, but you're just going to dispose of that craft and be forced to launch another a more competent craft to the same interplanetary location at a later time. This just adds more to the existing grind problem.
Without a starting boost, the "difficulty" inferred from lower slider is, as others have mentioned, nothing of the sort. Save yourself the headache.
-
A book is actually a good suggestion IMO. Minecraft had a handbook. Lots of games have strategy guides. Whenever the game is finished and they actually start polish, that would be a very cool companion. They could even leave some blank pages in it for people to write down whatever they need at a given time.
-
[more relevant answer above]
-
[redacted, done contributing]
-
[redacted, done contributing]
-
I agree with the OP, when you put it that way it's quite ridiculous. I do like the idea of kerbals getting experience for doing things related to their field.. but i also think the mechanism where they must return for debrief to level up makes some sense. If there were more "stats" as it were, it would be easier to give a few perks to a levelled Kerbal in space (like being able to fix wheels), and reserve others for their return. Even if they had leveled suits or even a medal texture that could wait for their return.
OTOH, I see the potential for tire/parachute grinding at KSC to rapidly level Kerbals.
On that train of thought, Astronauts IRL are acknowledged, at least in the public eye, largely based on a) number of missions, b) accumulated flight time, c) accumulated EVAs & EVA time. So time spent riding around, doing spacewalks and planting flags still should count for something.. but there is surely room for improvement.
Bigger VAB?
in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
Posted
Honestly, at the upper end of payload masses, being 50- 250t, the VAB could be a tad bigger. I've had a few designs that scrape the ceiling, and putting them in the floor isn't all that attractive. in like 98% of cases its fine.