CiberX15

So I really love the VAB and R&D center buttons in the Mission Control window. I’ve always felt it’s a bit tedious to navigate around the space center menus and this is a good solution. I’d like to see it implemented more comprehensively and universally across the board, so there are buttons to quickly jump from any building to any other building right on the screen.

This is looking forward to the next major release but I wanted to get the thought out there. I’ve been enjoying the new science update, however, I’m already starting to feel bored with it. It’s not the game's fault, it's just that I’ve done all these missions before, both in KSP and in KSP 2. Right now that’s not a big deal, the game is unfinished and the exciting new features aren’t in yet. However I worry that once Base Building and Exoplanetary construction are in, they’ll be blocked behind multiple levels of science before they can be used. The most important and exciting part of Base Building and Exoplanetary construction to me is being able to remove the tedium of repeated tasks. How many times do I need to get into orbit? How many times do I need to land on the Mun. If I can build bases and orbital construction yards… Just once. I’ve launched a lot of things into orbit at this point, and while it’s fun at first, there’s only so many times I can do it before it starts feeling really tedious. Based on my understanding of the current plan, building an orbital shipyard solves that. I can make a few launches to get the shipyard built, and prove I can supply it by making a supply run. Then I can do all future launches from the shipyard and avoid having to do any more tedious launches from Kerbin. So that’s exactly what I’m hoping for when base building is released, and it sounds like the plan. I’m just worried that that kind of base building and orbital construction and automated replies will end up locked behind Tier 3+ science unlocks, which to me would defeat the purpose. Especially as a veteran player who’s done all this before in KSP 1, I don’t know that I could stay interested long enough to unlock Tier 3 or higher science before the tedium got to me and I moved on to something else. So my recommendation would be to make sure the tech to support base building, exoplanetary construction, and automatic resupplies is available at least in some capacity as early as Tier 2 science at the latest. Limiting the size of early tier construction yards could be used to make sure there were still more unlocks to be able to build _anything_ in space, but I want to be able to build _something_ in space pretty quickly once those new features come online.

So I just started playing the science update. I’m an old hand at KSP so I guessed that after the “get out of atmosphere” mission, there would be a get into orbit mission. So I overengineered my space craft and managed to not only get out of the atmosphere, I also managed to get into orbit, then deorbited, then landed in the ocean. So I was a little peeved when I completed the get out of atmosphere mission only for the next two missions to pop up being “Get into orbit” and “splash down in the water” sitting there, uncompleted. I had to literally repeat the mission I had just run because the game hadn’t been tracking it when I did them. I actually like that the game doesn’t present every possible mission to me at the same time. I think that’s a good user experience especially for new players. However, I think missions should still be updated even when they aren’t visible. In that way when a player manages to pull off future missions before they are even aware of them, they are rewarded for their effort, rather than punished by making them repeat their work.

Yes I would support this completely.

I feel like I need something the size of the Wallaby XL Landing Gear to land anything with a large sized engine. Just to have the vertical clearance alone, never mind weight. But each Wallaby literally weighs a ton. The next smallest landing gear, the Wombat, only weighs a tenth of a ton, and only appears to be about half the size? Maybe a third? Accounting for the square cubed law, technically being a ton might make sense scientifically. except that the Wallaby is not a solid mass. It's mostly an empty casing for a still fairly skeletal leg. Arguably more importantly, from a pure gameplay point of view, it makes me just not want to use what is kind of a critical piece of the game. At it's current mass the Wallaby always loses the cost benefit analysis for me. I'll always just fiddle with adding more Wombats and figuring out how to get them low enough to protect the engine then ever use the Wallaby in it's current state.

Reported Version: v0.1.5 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz 4.00 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 | RAM: 32 GB On multiple occasions now I've set the settings for things like borderless window mode or unbreakable parts, only to have the settings apparently not saved when I quit and re-launch the game. .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

I love the countdown, but I also have no patience. It would be nice if there was an option between the full countdown and no countdown for a 5 or 3 second count down.

Reported Version: v0.1.5 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz 4.00 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 | RAM: 32 GB Build a simple large craft with large wings. Placed the landing gear near the fuselage but connected to the wings. Launched. Wings tore off like tissue paper. Included Attachments: Durrable.json .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Reported Version: v0.1.5 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz 4.00 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 | RAM: 32 GB I was trying to test how effective the auto strut behavior was so I created an admittedly silly ship. Stacked 30 small short fuel tanks with a large command pod at the top and a large engine at the bottom, then hit launch. The game went to the loading screen, then never loaded into game and stopped responding. I waited over 5 minutes just to make sure it wasn't just loading slow but it never recovered. I'll include the craft file which reproes it 100% on my computer, though really just build a tall stack of small fuel tanks and this seems to occur. Included Attachments: IKnowThisIsABadDesign.json .ipsImage { width: 900px !important; }

Yeah I hate to jump on the bandwagon but I'm also in disagreement here. Heavily modded KSP is currently far more stable and playable than stock KSP 2. In my current modded KSP 1 game I've flown multiple flights to Minums, one flight to the orbit of the sun and back, and built an space station around Kerbin capable of fabricating new ships in space using the Simple Construction mod. I've built ships in orbit, sent them on trips to other planetary bodies, then landed them back on Kerbin. I have about 16 hours of playtime in this save with no signs of stopping. I'm playing with Mods for mouse control flight, automatic science collection, Kerbal attachment system for attaching new parts in real time, Kerbal Engineer, Mech Jeb for autopilot, Scan Sat for finding ore deposits ( a mod that complains every time I launch it, that it is out of date and will most likely cause errors), and of course Simple Construction, which is a updated version of Extraplanetary Launchpads, that I have further tinkered with to make building ships faster and cheaper. Over the course of this save I've added new mods, and altered the configs with multiple flights in progress. There is every reason for my current game to be an unplayable mess, and yet I haven't had any game breaking bugs. Or even any notable bugs at all other then the one crash I caused when I added a typo in the configs, which was gracefully recovered from. In my most recent stock KSP 2 game I build a space plane, launched it, and the wings fell of immediately. Then I strutted it together as a workaround and tried again, and in my arrogance I also tried to add a rocket stage. This time it didn't fall apart until I staged the boosters away, at which point every part of the ship slowly drifted apart from each other while still flying. I got a total of 3 hours play time in that save before giving up and 2 of those hours were spent collecting data to submit bug reports. The most I've ever been able to do in KSP 2 is land on the Mun once, and that was a close call because I had to load a quick-save at least five times before I won the lottery and my ship _didn't_ disassemble itself when it entered the Mun's sphere of influence, or stage the drive segment, or open the landing gear. Right now I jump on KSP 2 every update because I have a deep love of the franchise and want it to succeed, but so far my experience has mostly been playing QA Tester rather than enjoying the game.

Well yes... Honestly I keep modding the heck out of KSP 1 to try to make it as close to the KSP 2 experience I'm hoping for. Right now I just can't stick to KSP 2 for more than an hour or two without running into some game breaking bug that ruins the experience. And on the rare occasions I can work around issues it just doesn't hold my interest since it's just a sandbox right now. And yet every time I see an update I jump back in to see how much things have improved. I'm still optimistic about the game, I'm just not going to hold my breath waiting for it.

Ok so I know this is quite a bit early but I wanted to start a discussion about what end game content might look like for KSP 2. I’m the kind of player who needs the game to provide me with goals to stay interested. However, in KSP 1 I usually played on science mode because the missions in KSP 1 weren’t super fun. There were a few milestone missions like Reach Duna, or task missions like Rescue This Kerbal who got stuck in orbit. But for the most part they felt tedious, like reaching this highly specific orbit, or flying your plane for about seven hours in real time to take the temperature at a specific altitude. On the other hand, just playing on science mode I tended to set out with the goal of reaching some distant planet I’d never reached before, but by the time I unlocked all the tech to get there, there no longer felt like there was much reason to go, since I’d already completed the tech tree. Plus getting to that point required about a hundred plus very similar launches from the same launch pad. Already I think there’s been a lot of talk about improving career mode so the missions aren’t so tedious. But I also want to hear what other driving forces might push us to continue to explore, even if we’ve unlocked all the tech? Some of that could just be simply improving time warp, or adding autopilot (presumably as an unlock in the tech tree), to generally reduce the tedium. If I can prove a plane can fly then time warp/autopilot it to a given location, that’s much less tedious then having to fly the entire mission in real time. Similarly I expect orbital construction will reduce a lot of tedium, since you can launch closer to your destination. Whether that’s making an interplanetary leap from Kerbin to Duna, or landing shuttles on Duna from an orbital base, not having to start every mission from the Kerbin launch pad will definitely reduce tedium, and make it easier to break the more ambitious missions into smaller more achievable chunks. Honestly this is one of the biggest reasons I’ve been excited for KSP 2 in the first place. So yeah! This might actually be a problem that’s already solved on paper. I just haven’t seen it yet since those features aren’t implemented. Thoughts? Ideas?

The rescue a Kerbal missions were some of my favorite, (possibly only favorite?) missions from the first game.

Honestly in KSP 1 I just modded the heck out of the game so I could time warp at much lower altitudes to achieve the same effect. The mod also let me physics warp a lot faster than the game really wanted me to be able to do. Se aforementioned impatience. Still I think it's a fair concern. Basically any mission past simply getting into orbit is going to have a lot of long time gaps in between which is why we need time warp in the first place. If the warp is so low and slow that it's still tedious to get through those periods, I consider that sub optimal game play. Actually another similar potential solution for this would be for the "Warp to this point" option to bypass the time warp limits. Like, once we are on non-physics time warp, and we click a spot on our trajectory that we want to be at, assuming the trajectory is being correctly calculated, it should be a simple math equation to nearly instantaneously jump us forward in time. Or if the goal is to fully reliy on simulation, simply have the computer carefully calculate the time warp to avoid overshooting. Right now the auto time warp seems very tentative about speeding up, when it really should be slamming on the gas and breaks because it is a computer with millisecond reaction time.

Ah I’ll be honest I hadn’t noticed the weird rolling until you pointed it out. I assume you mean the whole craft rolling in flight? At first I thought you meant rolling on its wheels. Once you pointed it out I did notice that it likes to just roll over but I’m used to the wacky things I build being wildly un-aerodynamic so didn’t even think about it. However… I did accidentally find what I think might be another bug while looking at that. I think this is an entirely separate issue to what we previously talked about but it has similar symptoms, and I’ve only been able to reproduce it on the craft files related to this bug. (both my original and the one you sent me reproduce it) -Launch ship from the same file (seems to work on my original and the one you fixed) -Get the main plan part in the air (I cheat and move the liquid engine staging so its easier) -Light the liquid engine on the plane part if you haven’t already -Once the main plane part is flying get up above the clouds -Cut thrust and stage, ejecting the ejector thing -Use the brackets keys to switch focus to the ejector seat -Wait for the original craft to get about 3k away, then observe, the ejector seat disintegrates. Note that the disintegration doesn’t seem to break parts. It looks more like a parenting/hierarchy bug with the local positions just drifting apart randomly, but it still thinks it's all connected. I tried taking the whole rocket sled part off and launching with just that to make things easier, but couldn’t reproduce it on the simpler craft, but I can reproduce it 5/5 times in a row using the full rocket sled > plane > ejector setup. I’d have just created this as a separate ticket except that it may or may not be related to the previous bug since so far the repro depends on the same craft file. Oh. It's also worth noting that I tried to see if it happened in reverse. Like, if I ejected the escape pod but then stayed with the plane. I couldn't tell if the pod fell apart because it was too far away, but the plane definitely did not. However, at about the distance that the pod normally fell apart, that's when the plane ran out of velocity, started falling, and flipped over. The movement and rotation suspiciously mimicked what happens to the escape pod when it flies apart, so I highly suspect that the parts of the pod are somehow still connected to the plane in spite of being decoupled. I know there have been a bunch of bugs with staged parts not disconnecting from their ships properly, but I was under the impression that those had been fixed in this build? Not sure if I'm mistaken about that, or if this is something new, or the ghost of a bug that won't die. Anth12: Split from another bug report. Added the following: Video Evidence: Start from 45 seconds. Note disassembly of small craft when parent craft is at approximately 2.5km CiberX15Disassembly.mkv Craft File: MissileAnthAdjusted.json

So... I know these are designed to protect us from ourselves, but I'd like the option take off the bubble wrap so to speak. I admit I'm perhaps a somewhat impatient person so I tend to play the game in as high a time warp as possible. And yes sometimes that leads to me smashing into things without the reaction time to stop it. But I never blame the game for that. So I'd really like the ability to just disable the "you can't time warp under this altitude" feature in the options. Or have options to set all the altitude limits so it would still automatically decrease time warp below given altitudes, but do so based on my preferences rather than what is safest.

Ok yeah, confirmed. The version you gave me does not repro the issue. Tried 3 times, got zero repros. Then went back and tested mine just in case and confirmed mine still does it. So the copy you sent me does indeed appear to be immune to the issue. I imagine it's also worth noting that the wing never fell off on the version you gave me. Which implies that it's definitely related to the same bug.

Sure I'll try it... Oh for what it's worth I also confirmed that that first time it loads and the one wing falls off, all the struts are also broken. So that reinforces your theory that this is mostly a strut issue.

Ok confirmed this repro on my end. It’s worked 3 out of 3 times from a clean launch each time. First confirm clean conditions -Make sure craft is not on runway -Make sure VAB is empty -Return to KSC -Save and exit game Repro -Launch game -Load campaign -Open VAB -Load offending ship in VAB -Launch -Wing sometimes falls off, if so Revert to launch -Once ship loads correctly on runway, return to VAB -Pull the liquid engine off -Put engine back on -Overwrite the craft save -Launch Confirmed when it loads the second time, the struts are there, but all appear to break the second the craft hits the ground. The wings appear to break off at the same time so I can’t tell if the same event is also breaking the wings, or if the wings are breaking because they can’t support themselves without the struts. (though if that is the case I would consider that an addental bug, that large wings can't support their own weight ) For what it's worth I also tried to make sure the craft was fully loaded in in VAB before making changes, saving or launching. (mostly by waiting for the sound to finish playing). This was to ensure this bug isn’t being caused by some race condition of pulling parts off, saving, or launching, while the craft is still loading. So 90% sure I ruled that out? I also tried to find shortcuts in the repro, like not saving over the craft, or just pulling the engine off and adding it back and launching. I sometimes got results but nothing is as consistent as the full repro I’ve listed above. Also interestingly, in the repro above, the wing ALWAYS falls off the first time for me. Which seems like it might be a separate issue but could just as easily be related.

Looking at the ship after it breaks, I don't see any of the struts intact. So it could just be the struts? The wings are pretty big so if it just loads without struts, the first bounce on the landing pad might be shaking the wings lose? A lot of the craft does stick together. It's mostly the wings that pop off. Sometimes other stuff I think but I can't confirm that.

I... maybe used to work in QA. I know how these things go. I _think_ I might have one that's working from a clean start. I'll pass it on now to save time but I'll also confirm once I know for sure on my end -Load ship in VAB -Launch -Revert to VAB -Pull engine off -Put engine back on -Save -Launch Once the bug starts happening it seems way more likely to happen again, and you don't need to save or make changes in the VAB, just revert to VAB and launch. But the bug doesn't appear to start happening until a change is made and saved. Also the right wing randomly falling off the first time the craft launches seems to be an entirely different thing? And as you said, reverting does fix that one.

I think I might have a 100% repro. Trying to confirm now but it seems to be: -Launch. -Don’t do anything -Return to vab, -Launch again -Ship falls apart on the second launch OK trying clean… Hurm no… Doesn’t repro anymore after closing the game and re-opening.

Hurm... I was afraid that might be the case. I haven't seen a lot of other people complaining about it so I figured it must not be common but I'm not sure why it would be unique to me. For what it's worth my standard MO for playing while the game is still very much early access is to start a new campaign after every update. So this campaign was new to this update with no other data in it. I'll play around and see if I can get a more consistent repro. I'll also take a look at that thread...

Reported Version: v0.1.3.2 (latest) | Mods: none | Can replicate without mods? Yes OS: Windows 10 | CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz 4.00 GHz | GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 | RAM: 32 GB So this problem is probably the biggest hurdle for me getting into KSP 2 right now. Every craft I build that is beyond a simple tube with wings just falls apart on the runway like someone forgot to put the bolts in. This is specifically with a craft that is also heavily strutted because I was previously having a problem with the wings tearing off super easily, and the struts seem to do nothing to keep the craft together. The other weird thing is that it doesn’t always happen. About 70-80% of the time the craft instantly falls apart as soon as it loads on the runway. But the other 20% of the time it loads in fine and I am able to take off. Though parts often start to fall off shortly after launch. I’ve included the craft file in this bug report. If it behaves the same on your machines as it does mine you should see the bug by simply loading it in the VAB, then launching it on the runway. (Runway 1 fwiw though I can't imagine that mattering?) If it doesn't repro the issue the first time, fly it for a bit, then revert to VAB and attempt to launch it again. Included Attachments: Missile.json

To me the “kerbal” mistakes have, and should always be, the fault of the player. Did you have to send a refueling mission because you didn’t bring enough fuel? Did your ship have to lithobrake because you forgot to pack parachutes? Did you stage your mun landing rocket while still in Karbol orbit? These mistakes, and recovering from them are what makes Kerbal Space Program “Kerbal” to me. Each one is a learning experience, in the same way that a child must sometimes make mistakes to learn from them. The silliness comes from laughing at yourself. Followed by the epic-ness of solving the problem you created. Like my most memorable “kerbal” moment from the original was when I was on my return trip from a highly successful mission to the mun with a load of science. When I realized that I… had not packed a parachute. Having to land that sucker on its tail with the tiny amount of fuel left in it was to me an excellent “kerbal” moment. As opposed to my most recent experience in KSP 2 when I was coming in for a landing and my landing gear just… fell off. That was not “kerbal” to me. It wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t avoidable. It’s just a bug that needs fixing. I think part of the current problem is that in the original KSP I always felt wobbly rockets were more a result of bad construction. Like, stacking 30 small tanks on top of each other rather than using larger tanks. So wobbly rockets in KSP 1 fit my definition of “this is the players fault” rather than “this is a bug.” In KSP 2 this does not seem to be true and wobbly rockets feel more like a physics bug than an avoidable mistake.