Rubenio

Reported Version: v0.2.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Pro 64-bit | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700F CPU @ 2.90GHz (16 CPUs), ~2.9GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 | RAM: 49152MB RAM When you assign an action group number to toggle the control surface deploy, the deploy flickers but stays off. If you instead set one action number to deploy and another to retract, the features work perfectly. It appears there is something wrong with the toggle deploy function. Included Attachments: .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700F CPU @ 2.90GHz (16 CPUs), ~2.9GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 | RAM: 49152MB RAM When two vessels are undocked, both end up with their SAS turned off - regardless of whether there is a Kerbal onboard or not. The same happens when the vessels are docked - the combined ship has SAS turned off. I think it's OK to have RCS automatically turned off, but losing SAS when undocking sends the inactive ship away with some force and it would be useful to keep the ship under control Here is a short video to illustrate: https://imgur.com/y4PnIqU Also, note the force of undocking is pretty large despite the docking force setting set to 10% - Shouldn't this work both ways? Included Attachments: SAS_Docking.mp4

I can confirm this is an issue with the latest release - I was making a video for a suggestion on SAS and undocked and redocked two vessels in succession and the second time around, the target speed was the same as the orbit speed though i was probably approaching <1 m/s...

When two vessels are docked, the new combined vessel gets a new name (eg Combined-11) and the original names are lost (not sure if this is a feature or a bug!) I need to go back and confirm, but I think this was not an issue in KSP1. One of the things I love in KSP is to build Space Stations in Orbit and dock vessels to it. I've made a modified KSS Hub with added fuel and extensions for the docking ports (to make space for larger ships!). And it's now lost its name... In order to understand the proposal, let's assume we have a space station (named KSS Hub) and a vessel docking to it (named Shuttle 1) Let's think of the KSS Hub as the 'dockee' and Shuttle 1 as the 'docker' My suggestion would be to adopt the following naming convention: The vessel that is being docked to, should keep its name - in other words the dockee keeps its name. Therefore, once Shuttle 1 docks to KSS Hub the new combined vessel is still named KSS Hub When the vessels are undocked, the original names are kept (eg Shuttle 1 gets its name back). I would propose to 'keep' the Shuttle 1 name in the vessel being docked to a new field (eg Old_Name) so that when undocked this could be captured How to determine which is which? I think the active ship in the docking sequence should be the 'docker'.

Reported Version: v0.1.3.1 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700F CPU @ 2.90GHz (16 CPUs), ~2.9GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 | RAM: 49152MB RAM When planting a flag on either Mun or Minmus - after the vessel is returned home and recovered, there are no flags remaining. There was a tech support thread back in Feb, but it appears this is still a bug. here is a link to that thread. i can confirm that this is still happening and i am posting it here in case this was not correctly posted before.

It seems to go through the motions of letting you rename the craft, but when you go back to KSC and return to the tracking station the name is not updated. Here is a short video illustrating the error. Also, it would be great if ships were not renamed 'combined-xx' after ships have been docked together. My recommendation is that the name stays with the accepting ship name (eg the starbase for example) and that the original ship name is kept when the two vessels are undocked... https://imgur.com/xqfe6aQ

There was a similar bug in an earlier version and this is still happening. I've placed a modified KSS station in orbit at 150km. After launching a separate vessel, docking (once!) and then re-entering if you warp to a position to re-enter towards the KSC, the station in stable orbit basically shoots up to a dramatically high Ap and the Pe drops to (below) the ground. I've been able to replicate this several times. I thought there was a fix for this kraken that incorrectly generated dV for craft in orbit. however, it seems to be back Btw, i tried to leave a kerbal on the station and that didn't make a difference.

Thanks for the link to the video. i've done some more homework... added MSI afterburner to monitor CPU and GPU - recorded some interesting events.. So on the launch page, seeing 100% GPU usage and 200FPS - i don't think we need that level of HP on the launch page... https://imgur.com/Go3B2fT Basically, while game is paused, FPS increases to 50% and %GPU rises to 100%. https://imgur.com/18IdQm1 When unpausing the game, FPS goes down - as expected. What's not expected is %GPU goes down as well - definitely not desired! %GPU goes down to 25% and FPS drops to 17! Clearly we're not using the system's horsepower in the right places. for static images it's overcooked and for places where you need it, it's not leveraging all the hardware. https://imgur.com/cN44xqZ I've also made the video to illustrate this as well. I guess I should file this as a bug report? And btw, the space station in the scene went off with mystery dV out of Kerbin orbit so that bug is still around in the latest update...

I've tried a new campaign and the first flight is around 20 fps, then it drops on the second... i am thinking of starting fresh and using a stock ship that can get into orbit and look at fps that way. I also dropped res down to 1080p and that made zero difference. not sure i understand what's going on.

Frankly, I am still disappointed in performance. Installed 1.3 when released and to me there is still something wrong with this game. I'm getting 16-17 FPS and it doesn't matter if i run low res or high res. doesn't really make sense. Here are specs of my pc: Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-10700F CPU @ 2.90GHz RAM : 48 GB GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX3060 Any thoughts on what performance I should expect?

This looks really nice, I was hoping to try it. I think the link to the aircraft download is incorrect as it takes me to the youtube video. could I ask you to check please? Thanks!

Hi Untoldwind, First, thanks for a fabulous job putting this together! it's so much more practical to play with fine control of procedures! I took a look at the to2 code and was playing around with implementing a dock routine as one of the entry points. I see you've already bult a dock.to2 file. when i open this in vscode, I see a couple of strange errors that I would not expect. I'm using your 0.3 vs of to2 parsing, and the latest KSP2 update. strange to me that .position is not a field... here's a copy of what i see: Please let me know if there's something I can do to help debug. Also, i've created a match_velocities and match_inclination entry point for those functions already in your code. please let me know if you'd like a copy. Best, Ruben

I just checked with the same design and the dV calculations are corrected in patch 2 for the ship in question: try it out, here are the values for this build: Mk2 cockpit, cargo bay and 2 short Mk2 rocket fuel, MK2 bicoupler and 1 or 2 terriers 1 terrier dV = 3059 2 terriers dV = 2825 There should only be a small effect on dV reflecting the extra mass of the second terrier (0.5t). HOWEVER, when I replace the 2 short MK2 rocket fuel tanks with 1 LONG MK2 tank, the weight should stay the and hence the dV should stay the same, but we're back to the original error where the 2nd terrier halves the dV!! Now, same build except that the two short MK2 rocket fuel tanks are replaced by 1 long tank: 1 terrier dV = 3059 (NOTE: this is the same as with 2 short tanks as they weigh the same :-) However, when I add the 2nd terrier things go awry: dV is now 1595 which is wrong, it should still be 2825 I really don't know why. I did find a way to figure out the math - have a look here (if you're interested): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

@Starhawk, thanks for the clarification on the dV changes in atmosphere. I think that explains the dV halving when you launch the space plane on the runway - atmosphere vs vacuum. But, I think my second message should have been clearer - would a small change in altitude change the dV? I would imagine the pressure doesn't change much +/- 100 m in the atmosphere. (but i am a chemist, not a physicist!) these were all observable changes around 3000m altitude Also, would the dV really be half if you add another engine? I was thinking that dV would be the sum of the overall of possible accelerations and mass would affect that more than whether there was 1 engine or 2. thanks for the help!

Also, I thought I should add another unexpected deltaV (dV) behavior: Expected Behavior: dV should not change when an engine is not in use. The thinking is that independent of altitude, the remaining acceleration that a ship is capable of should depend on its remaining fuel, its engine and its mass. Observed Behavior: When flying around Kerbin, with engines off, dV changes when you lose altitude and increases when you gain altitude. I've made a video of this here: https://imgur.com/wVA7EZh, though imgur shrinks the video size which makes it difficult to see. but, as a point the nose downwards, you can see the dV drop off and when I point back upwards (again with throttle at zero), the dV starts going back up. I've been able to repeat this flying on Kerbin a few times now.