FlowerChild

15 and a half at tops. Don't overdo it

We are the community...we are the hive mind...what one of us states we must all comply with... Yeah I actually like said new features, but the above argument may be just a tad off

One I just noticed: FlightGlobals.GetStaticPressure() now seems to return values in kilopascals rather than atmospheres. At least, I assume it's kilopascals, but it's roughly 100x greater than previous values, which matches. Noticed this when practically every part in my mod spontaneously imploded due to excess pressure when I first put them on the pad

There's also some of us that have decided we don't want early access as it comes along with the obligation not to discuss upcoming changes, and of course, the responsibility to act as a tester. I don't think Squad is at all unreceptive to modders having such access.

Just wanted to pop in and ask if I could possibly be ignored here as well. I'm feeling left out, and have grown accustomed to a certain level of quality in being ignored on these forums

Yeah, that is a fair point. I was largely focused on the antenna exploits and such, as I really hate stuff like that, and would have hated seeing months of screenshots of flying bricks with antennas all over the place Not entirely certain that one could have been fixed without the other however, as it sounds like occlusion was pretty broken overall and that was affecting the performance of everything.

I don't disagree man and have been rather vocal about the whole "release" thing. Things being what they are though, I'd much rather they fix things like this now rather than just let them slide for months.

Do you seriously want to put up with months of "put an antenna on it!", or "put a cubic strut behind it!" being the be all and end all of aerodynamic solutions? It would have largely defeated the point of having a new (and more reasonable) aero system in the first place. I think it's awesome that they caught this while people are still learning the new systems, and before it became the standard way of playing for a whole new wave of KSP players.

Well, apparently someone thinks that the game can't possibly require another hotfix as this thread just got moved out of sight to a seldom traveled subforum. Feel free to lock it down mods. I have no desire to spend time on this if the devs are no longer concerned.

Just confimed the VAB symmetry bug is still happening. Trying to nail down steps to reproduce as it's fairly random in when it occurs (at least from what I can tell so far). You can see it in action in the following screenshot: Instead of properly mirroring on the tank on the other side of the rocket (which was also placed via symmetry), like it normally does, it will mirror on the same part instead. EDIT: This is interesting: if I move the mouse cursor in from the right, just over the tailfin that's sticking out in the background there and onto the tank, I seem to able to reproduce it 100% of the time. Seems to be an issue with the part the mouse-cursor was *previously* over before moving to the current one. EDIT 2: More screenshots to show what I mean: Mouse cursor off to right: Move mouse over fin (symmetry briefly switches to 4X to match fins which may be relevant): Onto tank: When you're just moving the mouse around quickly by building something you of course don't really notice you passed over something like the fin first while moving your mouse onto the tank. Will try to narrow it down to a simpler test case. There we go. Super simple way to reproduce: Moving mouse in from right hand side: Onto tail fin placed with 4X symmetry: Onto tank placed with 2X symmetry: So it appears to be a problem with your mouse passing over a part with a higher symmetry setting before going onto the lower messing up the way symmetry works. Which seems to be supported by this additional case where I used 3X boosters and moved my mouse over them in the same fashion: Of course, in practice you just have no idea what happened, and sometimes wind up not noticing it's even occurred until you've placed several more parts and have a big mess on your hands.

We'll see I guess. The two items I listed as maybes are not listed in the patch notes. Personally, I think the chances of all priority issues having been resolved, and new ones not having been created, is extremely slim.

Creating this thread to take the place of the previous one that was locked down at OP request. Please post issues with the current version of KSP that are of sufficient severity to warrant priority patching. I will attempt to confirm them myself, and would ask that other forumites also participate in the confirmation process. If I view bugs to be sufficiently confirmed, I will add them to the following list: Confirmed bugs: -VAB symmetry bug ( confirmed and steps to reproduce here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118452-List-of-things-still-needed-in-a-hotfix?p=1891615&viewfull=1#post1891615 ) --------------- I have an extensive background in software/game development, so I will attempt to limit the above list to priority issues in a reasonable manner. This second list I will maintain for unconfirmed items. I will either confirm them myself, or would ask others to look into it and post confirmation/steps to reproduce: Unconfirmed Bugs: -Are maneuver nodes still refusing to be placed at times (UI bug where mousing over trajectory doesn't show a hotspot to place a maneuver node unless the camera angle is fiddled with)? -Recurring recovery dialog: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118451-Rescue-Kerbals-recovery-bug ---------------- Have at it

Already been on that for awhile, so may as well share This is all stock career mode (all default settings other than reentry turned up to 120%), so I've been limited by the parts I have purchased, but I've been slowly evolving a Saturn V/Apollo style design since the start of it, which has resulted in this: Pretty happy with it overall, other than the additional supports/strutting required in the middle, and the slight buldge on the LM fairing as I didn't want to use 1.25m parts for it rather than 2.5m. Works with mid-flight docking with the LM and all that: Works great. My last missions with it was a manned landing on Minmus and I had a ton of fuel to spare. Definitely not the most efficient design for that tech level, but I was finding career mode way too easy anyways, so I decided to start building for looks rather than efficiency at some point Don't have any hard delta-V figures or what have you as I don't use KER or other engineering aids and just build and fly by feel. Best I can say there is "way more than capable of performing a Mun or Minmus landing and beyond" EDIT: That's an LV-909 on the bottom of the LM itself BTW, in case it's obscured by the screenshot.

The way I interpreted the transition from the camera shot of a group of males to the weird looking Val, was that they were all staring at her creepily due to her being the first female Kerbal they've ever seen, and her looking very nervous as a result.

This is an awesome change. I did a little happy dance when I saw that mentioned in the 1.0 changelog. Is going to open up an awful lot of modding potential with regards to the building upgrades If you're using visual studio you can use the object browser to view the declarations of all the public and protected members of the class that you can override, which I think is all the documentation that would be available to any of us at this point. The function names should be pretty self-explanatory though (I remember looking at them when 0.9 came out and wishing they were virtual). There's only a handful of modders that focus on career mode (myself included) so documentation tends to be rather sparse, since it's all pretty much community written. If you have any specific questions though, feel free to ask and I'll see if I can help.

K, then you are likely a smarter man than I, as I had no clue about any of it Well...was a theory. I have no idea then, but yeah, it does seem higher than indicated.

Maybe it's a Kerbal "day" (6 hours I think) vs a 24 hour day thing? I noticed that it seemed to be going unnaturally fast as well (I think I accumulated something like 300 science after time warping 60 days and I had a ratio similar to yours), and I always have my game set to 24 hour days. EDIT: Actually, my bad, my ratio is at 0.25 science per day...just checked. Should have gotten 15 science then, and the 4 Kerbal "days" per day doesn't really account for getting 20 times that. I can't be certain of those numbers though as it's all from memory other than my current output rate. EDIT 2: Maybe the science output rate displayed is actually the data processing rate in Kerbal days? A 5X data to science modifier was mentioned earlier in the thread, and in combination with the 4X Kerbal "days", that would add up to a 20X multipler per earth day.

Thanks a million for that Nathan. I'm going to bookmark your post there for when I get to tweaking reentry, as your info on such matters has always been invaluable

No worries. I've also seen values for thermal mass btw, like the solarPanels have: thermalMassModifier = 2.0 So that's likely tweakable on a per part basis as well. No idea. I haven't even tried it yet If the .cfg files are to be believed, 0.12 conductivity is the default for parts, and a number of them are set to 0.06 with comments saying that's half default. So, since the heatshields have no such line by default, I would assume that in stock they're normally at 0.12, and the .cfg I provided sets it to half that as a starting point to see if it has desirable results. I'll likely be tweaking these values to get a more hardcore reentry experience for my mod, and will be happy to share whatever I come up with, but it may be awhile before I get to that, as I have a ton of other stuff to take care of for this update. Just really happy to have a clue as to what's going on with reentry in stock right now, so I'll have an idea of what I need to adjust there.

BTW, in case it helps, I just noticed this commented out line in the .cfg file for the mainsail: // heatConductivity = 0.06 // half default Not sure if it'll work, that may be a way to reduce conductivity specifically for the heatshields without affecting other parts. EDIT: Yup, I think it would work. Just found an active line like that in airbrake.cfg: heatConductivity = 0.06 // half default I strongly suspect adding something similar to the heatshield .cfg files will reduce their conductivity without affecting other parts. Here's a little ModuleManager cfg for anyone that wants to play around with those values for all heatshields simultaneously: @PART[HeatShield*] { @heatConductivity = 0.06 // half default }

... AHA! Thanks so much guys. I was having a huge head-scratching fest going on with regards to why heatshield behavior seemed so erratic based on what was attached to them. Had some Munar free returns almost completely deplete a 1.25m shield, while ones from Minmus (and Munar returns with different vehicles) didn't even make a dent in it. Am also playing at 120% settings, because yes, reentry heat is a joke at present, and I wanted a more challenging experience (which it isn't really providing). This all makes sense now thanks to the above comments

So you immediately understood how your location was affecting the ratio of science to data? That the higher level your scientists (or that you even needed scientist Kerbals) also affected that value? The amount of power required to operate the thing? I understood the parts you mentioned without additional documentation either. However, that's far from explaining how the thing actually works in practice and how to make effective use of it. After doing the above and pushing the various buttons, yes I knew how to start the thing running, but I had no clue whatsoever as to what was governing the actual science output. I just tried it out, and even moving different Kerbal types with different professions in and out of the lab on my above pictured base doesn't change the amount of science the thing says it will generate. I assume that's because they're still within the same vehicle, but stuff like that can quickly lead to someone believing it has no impact at all. There's been a laundry list of rules and sub-rules listed in this thread. I have no idea how someone is expected to figure them out on their own, especially if they are relatively new to the game. EDIT: Also worth noting is that I just discovered the thing can process science while in the background (like if you're operating another vessel or at the space center) but requires no electric charge to do so, leading down a highway to exploit-town.

True that. Contracts aren't applicable to science mode, but asteroids are. Honestly, I don't envy Squad's task trying to simultaneously balance for the excess of optional modes of play present in stock either. There's always a "but" in any balance discussion these days due to some mode or another potentially messing things up, and everything else needing to be diluted to accommodate that

On the first point, I think it reasonable that if a mod increases the amount of science that needs to be spent to complete the tree by adding nodes or adjusting purchase costs, it also provide sufficient additional sources of science to cover those costs. That seems very straightforward and inherently logical. On the second, I think that would be exceedingly difficult, to the point where it might only be possible if a player makes a concerted effort to dead-end themselves like that, and I frankly doubt it's possible at all given the overabundance of science in stock. I see what you're saying on a theoretical level, but I think the whole "infinite science" thing is essentially trying to correct a problem that didn't exist in the first place. If there are tech-support requests from people that dead-ended themselves that say differently, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them. Even for my own mod which has a much much tighter science mechanism, I don't think I've ever received such a tech support request (at least not one where it turned out to be true). As someone that *heavily* mods career mode, I honestly don't see any options it opens up that weren't present before. On this point I will agree: Was happy to fly and land that and see there being a reward mechanism in place to encourage it, I just think that reward mechanism may have been rather overdone and that how the thing works isn't at all intuitive. I actually searched out this thread because I had no idea how the thing operated once I got it there Will also mention that the UI really doesn't seem to be setup to handle the case where you have two labs on a single vehicle like that (I did that for crew capacity because I was completing a base building contract with it, and because I thought it looked cool...and because being used to higher difficulty I tend to build my stock vehicles with extra weight on board just for kicks). At present, there doesn't seem to be a way to specify which lab collects the data when you're looking at the results dialog and such.

Interesting system. Not at all intuitive, and open to massive exploitation, but interesting none the less. Of course, science was also the only currency with a finite number of things you can purchase with it, and there was more than enough within Kerbin's SOI alone to purchase the entire tree, making that point largely irrelevant.