Jump to content

We're working on 1.0.1

KasperVld

By KasperVld
in 2015

 Share

Recommended Posts

John FX

John FX

Posted
Posted

I think it would be nice to get the tier 0 buildings, fix some glaring bugs like podflipping, engines 'stowed' incorrectly etc and just go over the code and do tweaking/bugfixes in a more general manner.

For pretty much everything else, I'm waiting for mods to update.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monstah

monstah

Posted
Posted
Not to mention the unnecessary camera wobble when you go EVA.

I'm annoyed more by the shake when you hit atmo/vacuum limit. It's not like it's a membrane, its extremely thin atmosphere... plus it shakes on the way out, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eric S

Eric S

Posted
Posted
I see plenty of things that I would consider bugs (heatshield masses) but others are so obvious that I could equally surmise they were deliberate (fairing masses).

Actually, in this case, I think we're looking at at least two bugs. First, the heatshields shouldn't have their physics turned off (it's not just massless). As I understand it, the KSP devs added the physicsless thing because Unity has (had?) issues with connecting two parts where one part has more than ten times the mass of the smaller part. Since even the 1.25m heatshield has a 0.3t mass, I don't think it really falls into this category.

Second, physicsless parts aren't really supposed to be massless under 1.0, they're supposed to add their mass and drag to the item that they're attached to. If the mass and air resistance of the physicsless parts were being properly added to what they're attached to, then adding a heatshield to a capsule should still work. It may be that this function works correctly for parts that should be physicsless, but it botches it when the mass is more than it should be. This would be the case if they're not shifting the CoM of the part that the physicsless part is attached to, which would be a reasonable simplification if the attached part were actually significantly less mass, but quirky if that's not true.

Third, the map mode info popup doesn't include the mass of physicsless parts, but that's a display error only.

And no, this is not intended as a bug report, just an explanation why I think what's going on here is a bit more complex than just a flag set wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlexGunship

FlexGunship

Posted
Posted
I have to say that I am a bit disappointed. Over 2 years of playing KSP early access with no bugs that make the game unplayable. Then 1.0 releases and my space physics break entirely. Pods flip 180 on re-entry and spin wildly in space with no input or explanation at all stock. The sad fact for me is that early access was playable. 1.0 release is completely unplayable. Very disappointed. A place I never expected to find myself with KSP.

Honestly, this sounds way over-dramatic. This was the cleanest release I've seen. They warned everyone about the new aerodynamics. That's not a bug, that's LIKE REAL LIFE! Guess what... re-entering an atmosphere is HARD! I've played with Deadly Reentry and FAR for so long, this is all second nature. You'll get used to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Acemcbean

Acemcbean

Posted
Posted

For me, I've had a lot of improper lift calculations in the SPH. It doesnt quite understand how to "Tail," and is prone to saying my overall movement due to lift is diaganol. This isnt true, however, and the game secretly knows that, as it flies just fine without any phantom forces. As well, my capsules, no matter how well their mass is distrubuted to make "bottom end point towards hot stuff" likes to point "top end towards hot stuff." Unfortunately for Jebediah, Bill, Bob, Valentina, Melwig, and Malock, that hot stuff is a tad explode-y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smjjames

smjjames

Posted
Posted
Glad to see that 1.0.1 is coming so quickly, hopefully the worst of the issues with 1.0 will be fixed and a few cut features (dV readout, heat indicators, aero overlay, ability to customize upgradeable buildings) will make it in.

I don't think the ability to customize upgradeable buildings was ever a feature that was being worked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eric S

Eric S

Posted
Posted
Dont you feel that they nerfed the KR-2 Rhino too bad? I mean, 1000kN for a 3.75m part is ridiculous, even the mainsail gets 1370kN on low atmo

I was always under the impression that the Rhino was an orbital engine not a lifting engine. With a vacuum ISP of 340, I think the devs agree. The lifting engines had their vacuum ISP nerfed, and the orbital engines had their atmospheric ISP nerfed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Superfluous J

Superfluous J

Posted
Posted
Be nice if everything I lift off didn't just start a flip feast, wasn't a problem in .90

You are going too fast, aren't making aerodynamic rockets, are turning too sharply, don't have tailfins, or some combination of these.

The old "crank it over to 45 degrees at 10km" rule is dead. Never ever do it again. Instead, turn slowly right from the get go with the goal of being at about 45 degrees when you're 10km up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketPilot573

RocketPilot573

Posted
Posted
You are going too fast, aren't making aerodynamic rockets, are turning too sharply, don't have tailfins, or some combination of these.

The old "crank it over to 45 degrees at 10km" rule is dead. Never ever do it again. Instead, turn slowly right from the get go with the goal of being at about 45 degrees when you're 10km up.

This, my rockets only flip when I accidentally turn too far from prograde, it shouldn't take long to get used to the new launch profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kofeyh

kofeyh

Posted
Posted
Be nice if everything I lift off didn't just start a flip feast, wasn't a problem in .90

Yay. This is a consequence of everyone in the history of ever constantly repeating "just fly to 10k and turn 45º and she'll be right". NOPEH.

There is an entire generation of KSP players who launch rockets in a manner that has zero relevance to actual flight and have very bad habits. :)

This really wasn't covered overly well in the release. Sadly. But - Aero absolutely now acts more like the real-deal. It isn't the real deal however or you'd find it much more challenging.

But, much like an actual rocket launch, the ascent is best handled by ensuring you have a positive ascent rate once clear of the pad, and slowly banking in the desired orbital direction in ~5º (degree) increments. Anything more than about 10º (degrees) of attack angle (i.e. you stand on the controls to do that ridiculous 45% turn in space at 10km) then you'll have a bad day.

Folks will have habits that may need to be relearned. But at least the game now follows a more logical pattern in that respect. Good luck! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eddie Rod

Eddie Rod

Posted
Posted

This is exactly why you don't skip BETA! 1.0 to me is a pre-released version .91 and 1.01 will be .92! 1.0 is a label not deserved by this update even though I love everything I see so far and my jaw will not leave the floor! Great work so far SQUAD but hate to say I told you so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
neamerjell

neamerjell

Posted
Posted
This is exactly why you don't skip BETA! 1.0 to me is a pre-released version .91 and 1.01 will be .92! 1.0 is a label not deserved by this update even though I love everything I see so far and my jaw will not leave the floor! Great work so far SQUAD but hate to say I told you so.

I wholly disagree. This version definitely deserves the 1.0 badge! They completely reworked some things and they are way different from 0.90, but take some time to learn what's new before calling everything you don't like a bug that escaped beta testing.

Yes, aircraft constructed with 0.90 will be completely whacked out under the new aero model. I learned early on that the COM-COL relationship is slightly different as well. COM should now be twice as far forward as it used to be of the COL to keep a plane from backflipping at take off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted

I've lost Valentina three times already by sudden annihilation at the ground. Just walking, or jumping, or getting up after falling over - and POOF!

+1 on fixing indestructible insta-stop chutes.

Radiators are really in demand.

There are some fixes here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v1-0-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-(Release-v1-0-0-27-Apr-15)-Misc-Utilities-(18-Jan-15)?p=1486867

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leszek

Leszek

Posted
Posted
I wholly disagree. This version definitely deserves the 1.0 badge! They completely reworked some things and they are way different from 0.90, but take some time to learn what's new before calling everything you don't like a bug that escaped beta testing.

Yes, aircraft constructed with 0.90 will be completely whacked out under the new aero model. I learned early on that the COM-COL relationship is slightly different as well. COM should now be twice as far forward as it used to be of the COL to keep a plane from backflipping at take off.

In my view it doesn't. It definitely deserves the release candidate badge. If it had been released as 1.0 RC or .99, that would have been much better.

This update is great. The features added are great. The polish is great. It is a GREAT update. But it is still a release candidate. That isn't a step you can skip. They tried to skip it, and named it the release. They raised the expectations of a release level product. They said things like it will be ready when it is done. But the release has problems. And these problems would not nearly be perceived so negatively if it had been a 1.0 RC instead of just 1.0. After all, they are <s>mostly</s> all trivial issues. This release should have been a triumph.

It is said what is in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell a sweet. That is true as far as it goes, and it doesn't go to expectations. 1.0 full release has expectations that 1.0 RC doesn't.

That is my view on the matter, right or wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShadowZone

ShadowZone

Posted
Posted

1.0 is still a triumph. The performance and stability enhancements alone would make me buy it again if I had to.

Still, I have some issues with it. Especially with fairings.

Nevertheless: love it. Looking forward to 1.01

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...