Davidian1024

Hello, Would it be possible to have a forum dedicated to technical issues specific to running KSP2 under Linux? I've been running it that way since day one of early access, and I can see plenty of other people are as well. As it does not look like there will be a Linux native version of KSP2 for quite some time, it would be nice if there was a space where Linux KSP2 users could discuss their specific issues.

I've been running KSP2 with what seems to be about as much success as people on Windows since day 1 of early access. Today I found out that Valve released Proton 8.0. And while I am able to get the game to run under that, I have to bypass the launcher because it crashes. Launching it this way adds some complexity so I'd like to be able to avoid it. Anyone else have any experience running the game under this new version of Proton?

Everything MehJeb said is true. For example, I've been running KSP2 on Ubuntu 20.04 since day 1 of early access. It only worked under Proton Experimental (at the time the version seemed to be 7.0-101). That was with no launch parameters. And the performance seemed as good as what people on Windows were getting with hardware similar to mine. I also saw the same performance improvements Windows players were seeing after both patches. Now that Valve has released Proton 8.0, I'm able to get the game running under this new Proton version, but I have to go through a convoluted process to start it because the launcher crashes. But then I saw on protondb.com that someone had no issues running it under Pop OS under Proton 8. Now, it's also true that Windows is not completely homogeneous. There are different versions of Windows too. And I think Valve can probably point the devs of the different games to their usage stats for help on what version of Linux to target.

The game is literally begging for this to be an option. At the very least it should be possible in sandbox mode.

Yeah, I want to say restarting the game has helped. But, for obvious reasons I hate having to do that, so I haven't done it much. I'm having a great time with KSP2 despite the bugs. I'm actually really liking the direction development seems to be heading in.

I think this is a big part of the issue. And a legitimate one. Structural engineering is hard. But for some reason alot of people seem to think it shouldn't be, or maybe they just don't want to deal with it. But then, KSP 1 and 2 are drastically over simplified structural simulations. Now in terms of video games they're probably more complex than anything out there. I'm hard pressed to thing of a game that comes close. If there are games that are more complex, they probably don't simulate anything else. People want to fly big sophisticated craft that look cool. It's not at all easy to do this realistically. Trying to simulate a complex craft who's underlying structure accurately reflects it's visual appearance is just too much for people's computers. A single fuel tank could consist of thousands of individual parts for example. All that said, there is definite room for improvement here. And the devs know that, and they're working on it. Now to the people demanding to have the wobble removed, I say give them what they want. In the form of a difficulty option. An easier level that removes all flex from parts/connections perhaps. Makes everything perfectly rigid. I know a ton of people would use that. And they'd probably love it. But it needs to be a reduction of difficulty because real world objects are not perfectly rigid. Wings should not be able to withstand any amount of drag and not get ripped off. Long slender rockets should not simply be able to stand up to any amount of opposing drag and thrust forces. I for one want the wobble in my rockets to remain. But please do try to improve the situation. By the way, I'm loving the direction KSP2 is heading in.

yes please me too, and i really hate having to do that

I don't mean to be come off as disrespectful to the OP here or anything. I get how aggravating it can be when any UI/UX takes you down a road of frustration. But, I for one really like the new maneuver planning UI. I think it's definitely still rough around the edges but I like the direction it's heading in. I think it's a significant improvement over the one from KSP1. I know I found the KSP1 interface confusing when I was new to that. I think what they're building in KSP2 is already clearer and more intuitive. Not only that, it's really not that different fundamentally. On the bit about the flag markers being swapped out form 1A/1B and 2A/2B markers. When I first started dealing with this, it made me realize I didn't fully understand what the KSP1 maneuver UI was telling me. I actually had to finally get my head around more of what it had been trying to communicate. Now that I have, I feel like my ability to get around the solar system has dramatically improved. So, I for one am hoping that the devs do not dispose of the maneuver UI in it's current form and start over. That said, it does need work. But, I think they know that.

No mods. Unbreakable joints off. I regularly have large stabilizers just fall off while sitting on the launchpad for seemingly no reason. It often doesn't happen right away. I will be iterating on a large craft that has large stabilizers that have been working fine and never changed since initially attached. Then randomly after some other seemingly unrelated change, one or more will just start falling off as soon as I get to the launchpad or runway. I often have to rebuild that part of the craft exactly as it was, or rebuild it from scratch.

Fairly often things will break just by setting the craft on the launchpad or runway. If there's alot of parts, and especially when there's alot of parts that are the same, it can be impossible to tell what broke. There really needs to be some way to tell where a break occurred. Otherwise trying to compensate with struts can be complete guesswork.

I built a craft to try to accelerate to very high velocities using the dawn engine. I'm powering the craft with the KR4-P3 reactor. There is only 1 dawn engine draining electric charge. With nothing running I can time warp at any factor and EC remains full if it was already full. While running the single dawn engine the EC drops a bit and holds at a level just below full. I have a Mk1 pod, it's EC drops from 50 to 49.99 and holds there. The KR4-P3's EC drops from 500 to 499.82 and holds there as well. When I increase the time warp factor the EC drops to a lower level at each factor. 0001x = 49.98, 499.82 0002x = 49.96, 499.64 0004x = 49.93, 499.27 0010x = 49.82, 498.18 0050x = 49.09, 490.91 0100x = 48.18, 481.81 1000x = 31.81, 318.12 Anything higher and the EC drains to 0 This can't be right. Decoupling seems to cause the behavior to start. Decoupling again stops it.

I think this is a really important point, and maybe the real root of the wing falling off issue. Not sure. Craft often seem to be dropped from a bit of a high height on launch. Especially on the runway. I sometimes find myself waiting for my craft to stop bouncing even with suspension spring strength and dampers maxed out. And yet, sometimes, they're not dropped at all. Sometimes they're already completely settled. What's up with that? As far as having SAS off by default goes, I'm on the fence about that. I think it depends. For new players, I think you'd really want it on. Once you get to the point where you're savvy with using SAS, I think it depends. I know I don't always want to have to remember to turn it on. I'm also on the fence about whether or not brakes should be on by default. Again, I think new players are being catered to. Which I am in favor of. I can only imagine new players getting irritated at how badly their first take offs are going because they don't know that the brakes are on. One other related point. The runways do not seem to be perfectly level. My craft always seem to start rolling forward. This doesn't seem good to me. Maybe these can both be added to settings? Ether general game settings, or on the craft parts themselves?

All of the parts in the part picker seem to have a default orientation. When starting a new craft from a blank VAB, the VAB orientation will be overridden based on the initially selected part. I think the idea here might be to try to keep new players from ending up confused when building their first crafts. That makes sense to me, and I want new players to have a good experience. But, I think this will always end up conflicting with the players intentions once they get to the point where they specifically want to build something horizontally or vertically. I find myself regularly having to work around this behavior. There should be a way for the player to enforce their selected orientation. Perhaps a simple checkbox next to the orientation selector. Or perhaps it could be in settings. Here's an example to try to illustrate the issue. Note: Clicking the "New File" icon does not change the VAB orientation. It remains in the state it was previously in. Example 1: "Bulldog" Rocket Start with a blank VAB Select vertical VAB orientation Click the "Bulldog" rover part from the part picker Observe that the VAB orientation has changed to horizontal and the "Bulldog" rover part was inserted into the VAB horizontally. Example 2: "Gumball" Space Plane Start with a blank VAB Select horizontal VAB orientation Click the "Gumball" pod part from the part picker Observe that the VAB orientation has changed to vertical and the "Gumball" pod part was inserted into the VAB vertically. I know of ways to workaround this, but I think it shouldn't be necessary to have to work around it.

Stopped light parts from consuming EC after they are switched off This does indeed seem to be fixed.

Fixed spacebar sometimes not triggering staging This does indeed seem to be fixed.

I guess I would call that a partial work around. That still leaves the VAB orientation the other way. Call me poophole, but I don't like moving my root part from the center of the VAB if I can avoid it. This messes that up. I think this actually shows how counter intuitive this situation is. You select the orientation you want. The root part overrides it. Then you have to switch the orientation again. I'm convinced that this is a usability bug. I'm gonna submit a bug report.

I run into this alot too. Typically when first adding any wing, stabilizer or control surface part.

Version 0.1.2 released today and this is definitely still an issue for me.

I said "when starting a new craft" as in no parts are yet in the VAB. What you're describing sounds like a workaround. Though it doesn't seem to work for me. As of version 0.1.2 I'm still facing this issue. I'm going to give a more detailed explanation because the way things currently work seem really counterintuitive. Example 1: "Bulldog" Rocket Start with a blank VAB Select vertical VAB orientation Click the "Bulldog" rover part from the part picker Observe that the VAB orientation has changed to horizontal and the "Bulldog" rover part was inserted into the VAB horizontally. Example 2: "Gumball" Space Plane Start with a blank VAB Select horizontal VAB orientation Click the "Gumball" pod part from the part picker Observe that the VAB orientation has changed to vertical and the "Gumball" pod part was inserted into the VAB vertically. What I always end up having to do is start a blank VAB with a part that has the orientation I want. Then attach the part I actually wanted to start with to that part. Make that part the assembly anchor. Then delete the first part. Very annoying.

And here's a third using large wings for completion. The cursed root length seems to be 0.60. https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/QkdV2T66hq/

I think I can consistently reproduce this bug. Here's a craft that has the issue: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/GsYwShpPTN/ Root length seems to be the determining factor. 0.55 seems to be the threshold with this one.

This is definitely still happening. I was fighting with this before 0.1.2 released today, and I'm running into it right now. I have a craft that I seem to be able to consistently reproduce the issue with. I put the wings way behind the enter of mass in order to rule that out. Changing the root length of the wings of the craft seems to allow me to cause the problem to show up and go away. A root length lower than 0.32 seems to work normally. At 0.32 I sometimes see even stranger behavior. Pitch up causes one elevon to go up and one to go down causing the craft to roll instead of pitch. Above 0.32 I see the inverted pitching you're describing. https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/dV26MYfY2Q/

@DakotaNot sure if anyone else has mentioned this. It worked for me. Right click the game in Steam > Properties... > Local Files > Verify integrity of game files... This seems to be an old trick to get Steam to check for an update for a particular game and update it.

Is F12 for aero stats no longer a thing?