List of things needed in a hotfix

[LordFerret]

Picture is worth a thousand words in this case. The big difference is that stock has (intentionally) different levels of granularity and different mechanics. So in some cases, the comparisons are a bit tough due to a lack of analogues.

http://i.imgur.com/admxCDI.png

I see. Thanks. Nice! I will look forward to working with this... resource mining is something new for me thanks to 1.0.

[HiTechObsessed]

I completely agree, the parachutes are FAR too OP when released and not fully deployed. I get as much (if not more) G force than the old parachutes use to give at full deployment. Yuck.

I also had a weird (glitch?) thing happen on my way to the Mun. I made it all the way to the Mun, orbited, did science, etc., but on my way back to Kerbin, I noticed after staging my heatshield only had about 60% left in it, and was draining at 0.02 - while in space around Mun. Doesn't make much sense to me lol retested and it happened again.

[Spheniscine]

I'll just link to this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117262-1-0-Physicsless-Parts-Editor-CoM-sadness

[quantumpion]

"Floppy rockets" can be caused by high speed in atmosphere... The new, higher drag forces push on rockets in new ways... may require a more cautious approach, not necessarily a bug. It's discussed by various posts in this thread.

The joints are definitely weaker. My simple 1.25m rockets are floppy and barely stand up just sitting on the pad. The aero model just makes floppy rockets even harder to deal with because they don't want to hold prograde due to joint buckling.

[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.

[giltirn]

The joints are definitely weaker. My simple 1.25m rockets are floppy and barely stand up just sitting on the pad. The aero model just makes floppy rockets even harder to deal with because they don't want to hold prograde due to joint buckling.

I agree. This is made especially frustrating as struts are locked away behind a 45-science node and you start with small tanks. I find it somewhat ridiculous that you need to stack 6 tier-2 fuel tanks (not the tiny ones but the next upgrade) in a big wobbly spaghetti rocket just to get the TWR of the most basic engine below 2! Without struts those things are almost impossible to control, especially if you use gimballed engines which cause the rocket to bend around the COM.

[FellipeC]

Noticed that we still have no animation for a Kerbal taking a surface sample.

[Sochin]

1. Scanning shouldnt be a quick process, I can get science from it in under an orbit and thats me taking my time.

2. I prefer fairings that come apart in larger sections not just blow apart as they do at the moment.

3. Its still a nause to get parts fitted into cargo bays.

4. Still no matching nose cones for the mark 3 kit.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Sochin

[Endersmens]

As for the heatshield mass problem, Flowerchild found a solution, and I posted a new thread explaining how to do it. It's here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117279-How-to-fix-those-hetashields%21-%28get-rid-of-command-pod-flipping-into-the-heat%21%29

If you added that with the heatshield thing on the main page more people would be able to fix it for themselves until the patch comes.

[RoverDude]

1. Scanning shouldnt be a quick process, I can get science from it in under an orbit and thats me taking my time.

That is a design choice (or a disagreement with a design choice), not a hotfix

[Sochin]

It is still relevent though.

[BoomShroom]

The fixed landing gear aren't considered landing gear in the engineer's report, and I've been having to attach launch clamps to my early planes so they don't spontaneously explode because the landing gear are inside the tier 1 runway.

Edit: Okay well the unplanned rapid disassembly is actually because wings parts now have intra-vessel collisions. FUN.

Edited April 28, 2015 by BoomShroom

[Lorunification]

Another thing i noticed recently is that the timewarp does stop way too late when using ./, to control it.

Haveing a Pe of around 30k and warping in trusting the system to stop when entering the atmosphere just does not work. You just warp right through and the timewarp stops somewhere outside the atmosphere on the other side. Kind of enoying but can be worked around by stopping manually.

[justidutch]

Has anyone else had weirdness in the VAB, constructing ships? Last night I was building a large-ish ship that required multiple side-mounted boosters. After building the main rocket I constructed a side booster, and knowing I would use it again for future ships, made a sub-assembly of it. As soon as I named and saved the subassembly though, I couldn't place it anywhere, or click on the parts menu to 'trash' it. So, I re-loaded the craft, then selected the saved subassembly, and it still wouldn't attach. I think I had to exit the VAB, then everything worked as it should.

I didn't have too much time last night, so unless I see that someone else has encountered this and submitted a bug report, I'll try to recreate this and take notes and screenshots, etc.

Also, what's up with the merge ships function, I can't seem to make that work either?

[nadreck]

Another thing about chutes, regular ones really should be destroyed when fully deployed in the trans-sonic range (>300 m/s) and initial deploy say around 500m/s and the most specialized high speed drogues should fail by about 1km/s. I would like to see that fixed at the same time as the heatshield is.

[SkyRender]

After more testing, I can conclusively declare that the heat system needs a complete overhaul, full stop. The way things are calculated at the moment, going between 900 and 1200m/s (how fast depends on the max temperature of the parts you're using) at any atmosphere density greater than 0.05atm is fatal without a heatshield... but anything less than that is not. More to the point, the "death wall" speed is the exact same at all altitudes on up to that atmospheric density (around 25km up), after which the "wall" tapers off exponentially and completely vanishes by 35km or so. This... is not how shock heating works. At all.

[Frybert]

Some type of heating notification would be nice. Instead of 'OOOOOOoooo it looks burny buts its doing ok so f*BOOM*'.

[Curveball Anders]

Some type of heating notification would be nice. Instead of 'OOOOOOoooo it looks burny buts its doing ok so f*BOOM*'.

While I share your pain and frustration, I'm calm, serene and collected.

Learning by BOOM, is the Kerbal way of learning.

[RoverDude]

It is still relevent though.

Relevant in regard to system feedback, not relevant as it's not something to be hotfixed, which is the purpose of this thread, and a purpose I find extremely valuable.

[smjjames]

Not so much a hotfix as a tweak, maybe remove the camera jolt/wobble when you go EVA? Seems really unneccesary.

[Frybert]

While I share your pain and frustration, I'm calm, serene and collected.

Learning by BOOM, is the Kerbal way of learning.

Oh yeah? Tell that to Val! And Jeb! And Bill! And Bob!

Edited April 28, 2015 by Frybert

[Nobody_1707]

Another thing about chutes, regular ones really should be destroyed when fully deployed in the trans-sonic range (>300 m/s) and initial deploy say around 500m/s and the most specialized high speed drogues should fail by about 1km/s. I would like to see that fixed at the same time as the heatshield is.

I remember them cutting themselves if you deployed at very high velocity back in 0.90, but that might have been FAR. I was rather disappointed that they didn't do that in 1.0. Still, the 1.0 release just got some of my friends interested in KSP, so mission accomplished there.

[Engineer of Stuff]

I noticed some Z-fighting on the tier 1 launchpad.

Same here.

[Lorunification]

Another thing i just noticed:

Symmetry in the VAB does wonderous things. Look the following image.

The problem are the winglets. There are two possibilities:

1. Attach them to one of the mirrored parts (e.g. all 3 of the boosters on one side)

2. Attach them to the respective boosters on both sides

The current thing is one side of boosters gets 3-way symmetry and the other side gets one winglet. That is not correct i guess.

[Aerindel]

Parachutes are insane. They are basically indestructible at any speed or altitude. You can completely ignore re-entry heating and just hammer your craft into the atmosphere at 4k/s, pop your shoot, watch your gees max out for a couple seconds and then its a long boring drift to the surface. This really needs to be fixed, no parachute should be able to withstand those forces, or any Kerbal for that matter.

SAS is broken. Even a very short stiff craft, a Mk1 and one fuel tank and one engine, often gets stuck in a wobble that uses up all your RCS or battery. Wobble isn't even the right term, its more live a vibration. The craft stays steady but the gimbals and RCS just fire like crazy in all directions.

And yes, I know someone will say "Derrr just don't uses SAS" but thats not the point. After you've been playing the game for years you just want to run your mission, not have to be at the controls micro-managing every single maneuver. This is why SAS exists and right now it makes playing the game a chore.

Those are the big ones so far that I've noticed. I intensely dislike the polar orbit insta scan, I was really expecting it to be more like ScanSat or Kethan where you actually have to scan the surface one orbit at a time and it mad sense to plant multiple satellites in multiple orbits, but this is just a preference, not really broken, just bad.

But really, those parachutes, those are the worst, re-entry is now much easier and much less interesting than it was before, which should be the opposite of what 1.0 was supposed to do.