Fourjays

A fix for the OS X crashes that still occur in 1.0, and have existed since 0.25. KSP has left early access so there's really no excuse anymore.

Just want to echo this as I feel exactly the same. Ever since 0.25, KSP has been almost unplayable on my iMac due to the frequent crashing. I've seen many OS X users mention it over the last few months, so it's not like Squad haven't known about it. Crashes aside 1.0 looks good (drogue chutes ). But I'd rather the crashes were fixed than have any of the new features, because it really sucks the fun out of the game. I have a gaming PC as well so I'll probably try streaming from that (which has its own bugs), but not everyone has that option. Besides, OS X users shouldn't need to use strange alternatives to get a functional game on their iMac. EDIT: Here's a Player.log.

Ok, here you go. No player.log as one wasn't generated? KSP started: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1i6ew8wwwpq8cuc/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-21%20at%2011.23.43.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/brs8hzg4w2gb6i0/KSP_start_vmmap.txt Then I did this: I went to SPH. Built something. Flew it about for a minute. Returned to SPH. Loaded a new design. Flew for another minute. Returned to Space Centre. Loaded VAB.... And it crashed/beach balled: https://www.dropbox.com/s/et0nx8h1bmfd955/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-21%20at%2011.48.52.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/yarn7iehmzolwk3/KSP_vab_vmmap.txt KSP.log (looks like it runs out of memory on scene transition): https://www.dropbox.com/s/lh1zavt7ih47e21/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-21%20at%2011.50.56.png https://www.dropbox.com/s/kv36982kt014be9/KSP.log Late 2013 iMac, 8GB RAM and 1GB VRAM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/q0zvqvcdqzfues7/Screen%20Shot%202015-04-21%20at%2012.05.14.png

Is just what I observe via activity monitor and a bit of deduction. It reports 1.90GB at start (stock). If I check activity monitor when the stock game crashes it has always been 2.2GB or more. If I add mods it has always begun to crash when it reaches 2.1-2.3GB. I might give the vmmap a go today if I have the time, but honestly I've grown tired of mucking around trying to get KSP 0.25-0.90 to work on my iMac. Just hoping 1.0 is going to be more optimised at this point. EDIT: I forgot to mention that I've never seen graphical glitches myself (other than low FPS in the VAB/SPH). It just crashes otherwise.

Manually add/remove from GameData. I've yet to come across a "manager" that doesn't find some way to screw everything up, whatever the platform involved (game mods, dev environments, operating systems, etc).

I'll just add to the list of people here with a horribly unstable KSP on OS X. I think the problem is memory related. Stock KSP starts up at 1.90GB and I know the limit for KSP on OS X is at about 2.2GB, so I don't think there is a lot of room for scene transitions to occur, etc (it typically occurs when switching scenes, but also at other times). As an aside, I also get a low frame rate in the SPH/VAB on OS X. I easily get 60fps in space, with it dropping to 30fps near oceans (known issue, even my monster gaming rig dips). However, the SPH/VAB struggles to go above 21fps on my iMac (nVidia GT 750M graphics).

For me... On Windows it is stable, with a few mods. Even more stable with more mods if I run it in OpenGL. On OS X it's barely stable running stock as it has a much lower memory limit for some reason (about 2.2GB). I honestly believe Squad are going to have to optimise the game's memory usage just to get 1.0 running on OS X if the trend of "new version = more RAM" continues.

I removed the ThunderAerospace folder, so it should be gone. I don't know if TAC stores anything elsewhere? I'll have another look. Could it be down to the Module Manager version? I'm using 2.5.9 and I noticed the US zip I've got includes 2.5.8. EDIT: I may be mistaken about TAC parts staying. I've been thinking that the US radial oxygen tank was TAC-specific, but from the part catalog on your website (and the part.cfg) I now realise it is probably supposed to be there for use with the fuel cell wedges? If so, then everything is probably working just fine... except my reading comprehension.

Fair enough then. Got the impression from the Universal Storage webpage that module manager was used to show/hide the parts according to the life support mod used (under "support for other mods").

I had TAC installed briefly at the start of a new career game, then switched to Snacks. However, the TAC LS wedges are still showing up in my career game. Is there a way to stop them doing so other than deleting the relevant part files? Using v1.0.90.2. Tried removing US entirely and putting it back, tried deleting the module manager cache files and searched through the persistent.sfs file for anything seemingly relevant. Still stuck with them.

Does anyone else experience/have a fix for the new "gizmos" in 0.90 being bright pink when using OpenGL? On the offset tool it's a circle between the arrows and on the rotate tool it runs round the inside of each of the rings. If I switch to DirectX it shows translucent grey circles, so it's like the texture's alpha is broken or something. Only problem I've had with OpenGL since I first started using it.

I think 0.18 or 0.19 was my first version. I don't know about the versions I achieved stuff in... still not gone outside of Kerbin's SOI and have only orbited Minmus (not landed on it). Everytime I progress my "career" enough to go beyond the Mun Squad release a new version that compels me to start over.

I wouldn't hold out for x64 before 1.0. As far as I know, it will be dependant on Unity 5 and, I presume, also dependant on Squad being able to convert KSP to Unity 5 while fixing any bugs that will occur as a result of that. It is probably far more realistic for Squad to focus on optimising KSP so it performs better with a smaller memory footprint across all three platforms.

40? I had about 10-15 with 0.24, and with 0.25 I couldn't even get my "essentials" to not send it over the memory limit. Not bothered trying 0.90 on the Mac, but I'll definitely give it another test now. I'll also check out ps tool and see what that reports. I'm aware -force-opengl wouldn't do anything on the Mac. My point was that OpenGL on Windows results in lower memory usage, whereas the Mac version (which is OpenGL anyway) seems to use more memory than DirectX on Windows.

Mods are a total no-go on the Mac version, because it crashes at or just over 2GB for me. I'll be amazed if stock KSP even starts on Macs when 1.0 hits, given each version since 0.23(?) has increased the RAM significantly. Luckily I have a PC as well, but I'd prefer the Mac version worked properly as I have to stream it from my PC which breaks the mouse camera controls. Bizarrely, while forcing OpenGL on the PC version reduces stock memory usage from >1.5GB to <1GB, the Mac version (which is OpenGL by default) doesn't get any benefit from it and can easily reach 2GB.

Out of all the early access games I play, Prison Architect is the only one I can honestly say feels ready to release. Just needs a good bug bash and some tidying up and it's good as far as I'm concerned. Many people (including myself) need to be careful to discern between what would make KSP "ready for release" and what we merely "want". In a perfect world I'd want all the realism mods integrated, but things like reentry heating, life support and communications are all a bit out-of-scope for the default KSP experience really (although I've still got no clue what the bitrate nonsense is all about with the communications parts). I've been saying for a long time that the career/science modes are lacking, largely because the science collection becomes boring (seriously, there are so many small ways to improve this), but this could easily be expanded on post-1.0. Keeping that in mind... I think the following is what is stopping KSP being ready for 1.0 (not in any particular order): - Performance. Memory usage is too high and desperately needs optimising, the low FPS in atmospheres needs to be fixed (even my powerful PC struggles to maintain 30FPS at times) and the Mac version needs some love as just getting stock KSP running is a pain (have a config with a decent processor and Nvidia graphics). - Bug fixes and testing. They're going to fix all the bugs apparently, but as a developer myself (websites and recently games) I'd say you should always do one more round of testing than you actually think you need. I got too excited when releasing my first game and messed up the performance. I patched it soon after release, but it took almost a year to recover from those first bad reviews... There should be at least one more beta. - Assist and explain. Some aspects of KSP need to be simplified or explained better. I mentioned above the communication bitrates... I really have no idea what they mean. Nor do I know what the difference in colours on the transmit and keep report bars of the science screen mean (darker/lighter green/blue). If I hadn't watch some videos I'd have never have figured out how to get to orbit. Without the Engineer mod I'd have no idea how much power is in my rocket. I'd have never gotten to the Mun without Scott Manley's help and who knows how you figure out inter-planetary travel without a mod or a physics degree. I've made my point - KSP needs really good tutorials, and more in-built tools to help with these aspects. Maybe tie them into the tech tree to add some variation to science. - Part variation. KSP needs some more part variation to help keep things fresh and flesh out the tech tree. Fairings are a must with the new aerodynamics (not seen these mentioned), but more parts on the whole would help make the game feel more complete. Another command pod, some additional engine options, more varied communication parts, some alternative escape towers, etc. To achieve this quicker Squad could look at integrating some choice mods or perhaps have a community competition to create these parts (the best ones getting into the game). - Mod dependance. Don't depend on modders to complete the game. I'm very worried this is why Squad are rushing to release - because of the wealth of mods out there that "complete" the game. I used to play Trainz Simulator and the thing that killed it was the developers basically releasing an engine with a bunch of community developed content included on the disc. Mods and modders are good, but don't use them as a crutch. You still have to make the game as good as possible. - Improve visuals. KSP is not a bad looking game, but it isn't good either. Many of the parts don't visually fit (especially with the new plane parts), the atmosphere looks boring without EVE/Better Atmospheres, the default skybox is a horrendously blurry mess, terrain scatter is still "WIP", and I believe (from others) that there are easter eggs now buried beneath the ground. - Wishes. While not necessary, a few minor improvements to various systems could help complete the game. I've repeatedly mentioned science and it'd be a whole lot more interesting if some of the experiments required you to gather data from multiple locations before you get the science (e.g. gather geology samples from 3 locations on the Mun). And what about something like KSPI's "crash-a-thing-into-the-planet-and-get-science" device (the name escapes me )? Non-science wise, perhaps have a powerful engine that can only be powered by a resource obtained from outside Kerbin's SOI? Maybe a satellite part to help in discovering the easter eggs? Small things like this could make the whole career mode more motivating, involving and interesting, while helping to fill the tech tree and add variation, without too much development on new systems.

I voted no for two reasons. 1) With all the changes listed, there needs to be at least one more beta release to iron out any flaws. Reviewers will be harsh given Squad doesn't have the big bucks of EA, Activision or Ubisoft to persuade them otherwise. 2) I still feel the science system needs work. While everything else has been added/improved around it, the science system has been left to gather cobwebs. It's satisfying enough early on, but it needs some growth and variation to it to keep it fresh beyond the first few hours of play. After a very short while the only variation in science is the scenery. It's just another currency that fails to capture any essence of what space science is about...

Could try installing the active texture management mod. When I was experimenting with OpenGL mode on Windows a few weeks back, I kept getting modded and unmodded parts that weren't loading textures (at random). Even though it was entirely unnecessary in OpenGL mode, the active texture management mod stopped it occurring for me. The mod must change something with the textures that fixes the problem as a side-effect. Worth a shot anyway.

I still think there is a fair comparison to be made. I doubt we're going to see any major shake-ups to the basic career functionality now that the game is entering beta. If you look at games like ETS2 (or Prison Architect if you want to compare alpha to alpha) there is a loop of continual expansion and increased reward. In an ETS2 career you'll start by doing quick jobs (10-15) to get money to buy a truck. Once you own a truck you get more money for each load. Another 10-15 jobs later you can afford a second truck/driver and can probably go overseas. Longer trips means more money. Another 10-15 jobs later and you can have a third truck/driver and can go further than before. Perhaps another 10-15 jobs later you buy a second garage and another truck/driver. At this point you might be able to drive half way across Europe and get high value loads. Repeat this same cycle of expansion enough and you can drive right across Europe, will get nice loads of varying sizes and weights, and may own 4 or 5 garages and 15 trucks/drivers. The continual income will be in the region of £500,000 a week and you can continue to expand. One day, you may have an empire of 100 garages and 500 trucks/drivers. Should you make a mistake, you can always sell trucks or take out a loan. KSP has the same loop initially. You build a rocket, go to space, get science/funds. You unlock a science node, build a bigger rocket, go to space, get more science/funds. Eventually you unlock a better science part, which gives you more science. So far, so good. But once you've got all the science parts you've tapped out the expansion. The only way to get more science/funds is to go further, and while you numerically get more, you lose the feedback as the player. Why would you go further? You get more science to get more parts, but why? Now that I think about it, this is pretty much the point when I'm getting bored - I've unlocked the science parts, got to the Mun and then stop. Further more, if you make a mistake (say 2 or 3 failures of an overly ambitious rocket) you'll likely be without funds or contracts, essentially making it game over. Some of this could be fixed by balancing the science/funds/reputation. But there also needs to be more complex and rewarding science systems (at the cost of funds/complexity), and a hands-off system which provides a continual trickle of science/funds (would be a good way to make space stations/satellites/colonies useful). It needs that feeling of reward and purpose for the whole career, from Kerbol to Eeloo. I'm not convinced that KSP is going to see these kind of changes in the future, but I hope I'm wrong as I'd love KSP's career to be as enjoyable long-term as ETS2's. For now I'll either be switching back to sandbox and spreadsheets, or giving science mode a go with an alternate tech tree. Thanks. I like this idea a lot.

Wow, wasn't expecting this many replies when I came on this morning! I have played about with some alternate tech trees (such as T7), but found some of the mod integration a bit "wonky" at times. I've also had a go with KSPI, but have a tough time deciding between that or the Near Future mods as they don't really seem directly compatible. I might try an alternate tree again in the science-only mode though and see how I go. Although I do wish they'd make science collection a bit more scientific and playable... My latest attempt with 0.25 was with FinePrint and CustomBiomes. Honestly I never really managed to give FinePrint's contracts much of a go. It gave me one to fly over areas on Kerbin, which was kind of difficult with landing gear buried who knows where though, and not enough funds to make a VTOL with sufficient fuel to reach the locations. It is a good mod though and definitely something that would be a step towards improving the career. This is a nice way of explaining how I feel. I either feel like I'm being rushed into visiting places I'm not yet ready to (due to parts, experience, science, funds, desire, whatever), or that I'm being held back from the things I want to do. As someone else has said, it is like I'm playing Squad's career and not my own. Think last attempt I went with the default for science, 150% funds, 150% penalties and 50% reputation. Still ended up finding the funds too restrictive for the contracts being offered. I want to play a career mode though? I love tycoon and career based games. My favourite game right now is Euro Truck Simulator 2 and I'm having a blast building up my trucking empire (4 garages and 15 drivers/trucks). This is kind of my point - if I love those kind of games, why does KSP's career mode fall so flat for me? I should love it. It isn't about the challenge per se (I've had some good times building and perfecting some odd designs, like a tri-rocket/Mun lander design to keep the CoM low ), but that playing the career mode isn't feeling like a very rewarding experience compared to similar modes in other games. I never said anything regards sandbox being neglected. More scientific instruments for doing actual science like the thermometer would be nice though, and could make the science mode more interesting than reading a bunch of increasingly bizarre comments about things being made of ice cream or rocket fuel. The comments are funny at first, but grow old. I'm probably in the minority, but I'd like to actually learn about the planets in the Kerbol system, how it relates to the Kerbal's existence and what it can do to help my space program. I wish I could claim to be highly experienced, but I'm not. I've not finished the tech tree (get bored of the science grind before that point) and haven't gone beyond Minmus. I haven't even docked anything since before the tech tree was introduced, because I end up quitting the game before I unlock docking ports. I'm very good at getting to 100km orbit without using manuver nodes though. I might try sandbox over the weekend. I watch Scott Manley's KSP videos as often as he releases them, and read these forums every day so I definitely want to play KSP. It's just the grind and tedium of the career keeps putting me off. I like this idea. Would you mind sharing your spreadsheet so I can get an idea of how you manage this? Should be able to grab it here. This was from the pre-contracts/funds career, hence why there are "do science" remarks on some of the missions. I've had more complicated versions before that listing my lifter capabilities, mission programs (including "commercial" missions such as GPS satellites) and more. /long post

When I first started playing KSP (circa 0.18/0.19) I had a spreadsheet for managing my own kind of career mode. I tracked my Kerbonauts, their missions, achievements and flight time. I had a table of "scientific data" I'd discovered with the four basic instruments available at various altitudes and positions on Kerbin, Mun and Minmus. I'd done a number of missions such as launching my own "Stayputnik", docking with a practice target, launching communication satellites, mapping satellites, tested my Munar lander in LKO (after watching "Spider" in "From the Earth to the Moon" admittedly ) and spent countless hours crafting and testing a Munar rover that could fit in the 1.25m KW fairing, before landing it on the Mun itself and driving several KMs to scout a potential landing site. I played the game like a career and approached the game kind of like NASA would - test it, investigate it and then do. So since the first part of career came out, I've stubbornly stuck with career mode. From the wonky tree where probes and landing gear are horribly placed and the click-fest science grind, to the "test some random part at some impossible position" gobbledygook contracts and the budget constraints that basically sink a space program after two or three failures. I've tinkered with the custom career settings over and over trying to find a balance to make it challenging enough to be fun and yet not be a horrible grind. And I've still yet to land on anything past the Mun! Every release I've started a new career, tried to enjoy it and then get bored just before or after I land on the Mun. With the release of 0.25, I spent some time finding a bunch of mods to start my career over ("it'll be fixed this time", I told myself, "these mods will add more fun!") yet I'm three missions in, already being told to go to the Mun, low on funds, still without landing gear and already bored. Overall I think what I'm missing in career mode is the sense of accomplishment and fulfilment in doing things (even simple things like lander tests). The tech tree limits the parts in a really arbitrary way (although I have made some wacky rockets as a result) and science is just plain dull to collect. The contracts that should fix it by adding another dimension just turn the game into this huge rush out of Kerbin SOI, and the funds stop you from doing even the little things like testing parts because they'll just be a waste. And to top it off, powered flight increasingly seems like a mid to late game technology and probes/rovers are pretty much relegated to uselessness (seems odd given that they've done far more space exploration than their fleshy counterparts). I'm sorely tempted to go back to sandbox and a spreadsheet, but I'm also wary as to how much "real" science I can do now that so many mods are geared towards the career mode. Not to mention the time spent tracking everything manually. Anyone one else had the same problem with the career mode? Any recommendations on what I could try to give the career one more chance? Or is it time to admit defeat and ditch it for sandbox mode?

If it looked more like that I'd be cool with that. That converted barn in the second picture would be perfect! In comparison, what has been show off so far looks too farm/junkyard/comical/steampunk. Not helped by the low quality of the models/textures which I sincerely hope aren't the finished article.

Thanks to the OP for this tip! Can finally use all the mods I want without having ugly textures. Been doing quite a bit of testing with this over the last few weeks and it works well. Only things I've noticed is the KSC flag doesn't animate and it perhaps working the video card a bit harder than DirectX mode does (only judging by the amount of fan noise). Also figured out a few tidbits that may help others so I thought I'd share... - I kept getting out of memory errors at only 1.5GB usage initially, with the game crashing at the menu. I fixed this by increasing the page file (was set really small due to having an SSD). - Active texture management will use more memory (about 200-300MB more). However, it also fixes missing textures issue (where you just get a white model). I think the missing textures is due to the format used because only some mods were effected for me. So it might be worth running without it if you want to save more memory, or running with it if you keep getting textureless parts. - If you absolutely can't get OpenGL mode to run right, you might want to try LoadOnDemand. In my tests it isn't as dependable as forcing OpenGL, but it may be worth trying for some. It loads textures on demand, so you can still get situations where it goes over the memory limit (for example, by having too many command pods so it crashes on load of the SPH/VAB). - If you get shadows showing through models, it might be down to Kronal Vessel Viewer or any similar mods. I also got it in DirectX mode sometimes. Hope that helps somebody.

Not a fan. Completely jars with the visual style found in the rest of the game. The trailers are ok and expected, but the barn, telescope and silos all look too comical. The plane immediately looks out of place next to it all. I'd make the barn smaller and more shed-like, ditch the silos or at least give them better textures, and make the telescope look less steampunk and more like something your typical garden astronomer would put together. Make it look less like Redneck's do space, and more like an amateur astronomy/rocket club if you want a "humble beginnings" theme to the game start. Ignoring the general style, the models and textures all look a bit rushed and "temporary" although that may be because they aren't yet finished. Sorry to be so down on it, but it's best to give honest feedback so you guys can improve it and make KSP as great as possible!

Is there a way to fix some engines having "on" effects when they are off? I've found it on two engines so far - the stock PB-Ion and the Kingfisher in RLA Stockalike both appear to be on when they are shutdown/throttled down. I had a brief look at the config files but couldn't see anything obvious.