What 1.0.x changes are catching out experienced players (aside from aero)?

[katateochi]

For players who are very accustomed to how things used to work, what changes (APART FROM AERODYNAMICS) are you getting caught out by.

For me it's that the OX Photovoltaic Panels are no longer retractable.

They used to be my panel of choice for most things including landers and before coming into land I'd fold them away, even on non-atmo bodies, in case the craft tipped over or (more likely) to protect them from Jeb as he clambered around collecting science readings.

I've already had a failed probe on Duna because it had those panels and I realised too late that I couldn't retract them, so it lost it's panels on entry and promptly ran out of power to transmit it's science. Did I lean my lesson? No. I'm just preparing a manned mission for Duna and realised the main orbital hab module (currently being assembled in LKO) has those panels and I've already deployed all of them. So they're gonna get ripped of during the aero-braking (I should have just deployed half now and then the other half after I was safely in orbit). So I've had to send up an extra module for it that adds some of the SP type panels, but that's not going to be as ideal.

(I don't mind this change, I'm just amused that it's caught me out a couple times and my brain is refusing to accept it)

So what changes to things that you where very familiar with are now catching you out?

[Levelord]

I think that might be a bug because when I took my Kerbals out on EVA and select the panels, the box comes up asking if I would like to retract them. Of course, the button doesn't work but the panels are supposed to retract wither way.

[Korizan]

I use the the 1x6 all the time, launch a satellite yesterday and had no problem deploying or retracting them.

Was there an update today ? Will have to check it out when I get in game.

-------

Just checked

Okay never noticed that before, always put the protected version on the landers and they can retract.

Well now that is something to keep in mind, makes sense but...

YUP add me to the list of people that overlooked that little detail...

Still I thought I had retracted them before, hmmm wonder when it was changed.

That or I am just going nuts.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Korizan

[cicatrix]

It's by design (from the part's cfg file):

Actually I thought it was a bug too.

 MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDeployableSolarPanel
        animationName = solarpanels4
        resourceName = ElectricCharge
        chargeRate = 1.64
        [B][COLOR=#FF0000]retractable = false[/COLOR][/B]
    }

This was made, as I'm told, to differentiate between two sets of panels this:

OX-4W (non retractable):

and this:

SP-W (retractable):

Edited May 21, 2015 by cicatrix

[Endersmens]

Its in the official change log, its to give the ugly panels a use. Nobody used them cause they were heavier, but now they have purpose, for reentry and such.

[soulsource]

It's intentional, see the changelog.

I didn't fail any missions yet because of it, as I always realized before launch, but the significantly reduced atmospheric performance of some rocket engines made me scrap several lander designs for Duna. I'm curious how my current one, the first I launched, will behave once it's there.

[SpaceChipmunk]

I didn't fail any missions yet because of it, as I always realized before launch, but the significantly reduced atmospheric performance of some rocket engines made me scrap several lander designs for Duna. I'm curious how my current one, the first I launched, will behave once it's there.

I think the ISP changes of some of the engines have been the main thing to catch me so far. Also adjusting the flight profile to get to orbit gave me a little bit of a puzzled look when it was first introduced, but that was simple enough to overcome.

[Levelord]

If that's the case SQUAD needs to update the part description and remove the context menu asking for the option to retract the panels when you aren't supposed to. Most people will think it's a bug.

[SpaceChipmunk]

If that's the case SQUAD needs to update the part description and remove the context menu asking for the option to retract the panels when you aren't supposed to. Most people will think it's a bug.

The part description in the VAB does state that the "Un-boxed" version cannot be retracted, but you have to go to the RMB menu to see that.

[cicatrix]

If that's the case SQUAD needs to update the part description and remove the context menu asking for the option to retract the panels when you aren't supposed to. Most people will think it's a bug.

There's actually a bug in VAB where you can still assign 'Toggle' and 'Retract' actions to them.

[KerikBalm]

I think it would be nice if a 5 star engineer could manually retract those panels....

They'd still be more vulnerable to breaking, and have a lower heat tolerance.

[zarakon]

Maybe it was always like this, but the unprotected panels now have the added fun of being breakable even before deploying. Thanks, fairing.

[Xaver]

Thats right. But i think there is another sticky thread called helpfull 1.0 observations.^^

[Great General Kaboomsky]

While the new panels caught me out once or twice (thankfully just inconvenience, not disaster) the biggest challenge for me has been engine overheating. The "Twin Boar" engines are generally my go-to for boosters and first stages on my heavy-lifters, but even with wing-bits stuck all over the central core, I still end up circularizing at about 1/4 throttle or "kaboom!"

I'm not sure that I necessarily "like" or "dislike" the heating issue, but it certainly has changed the way I play. My payloads are more realistically weighted and more aerodynamic, and I have noticed that my ascent path has had to change drastically in order to build up as much speed as possible while still benefiting from atmospheric cooling.

[Starwhip]

Reentry heating. Especially because on my old laptop I can't play with atmo effects, and thus cannot see the fire...

[Ape_Descendant]

...

For me it's that the OX Photovoltaic Panels are no longer retractable.

...

Yes this caught me out last night! I had them inside the cargo bay of my SSTO and attempted to retract them just before reentry. I had flight engineer Lemgun Kerman out on EVA desperately trying to push the damn things back in only seconds before reentering the atmosphere. Suffice to say they were swiftly ripped off at around the 25,000m mark.

[cicatrix]

I had to rethink all my rockets to adapt to the lowered IsP of the engines. Actually, I miss the time when I was able to lift things off Kerbin with LV-909 or Poodle . This.. and the situations when Skipper was too weak and Mainstall was too strong.

Also, the absence of any decent fuel tank right in the beginning of a career. I had to stack 10 of those things on top of each other.

[Endersmens]

I've found using skippers and mainsails a breeze. Have made many simple first stages with 2 half sized tanks+skipper or 3+mainsail.

[magnemoe]

I think that might be a bug because when I took my Kerbals out on EVA and select the panels, the box comes up asking if I would like to retract them. Of course, the button doesn't work but the panels are supposed to retract wither way.

I think they should be retractable by kerbal on eva, they are movable but uses an spring or something instead of an motor to save weight.

[nholzric]

Rocket occlusion. I knew wings, intakes, and jet engines were all more sensitive to being blocked. But I didn't think about rocket engines until I was making my final approach to Minmus the other night. I was using two of the orange side-mounted deals ("Twitchy's"?) and was already a little worried about TWR even on Minmus. I was in map view when I throttled up and my speed wasn't changing. I switched to flight view just in time to see two of my ore tanks explode. I thought to myself "That's okay, I have five more ore tanks" but unfortunately directly below the two exploded ore tanks were my two drills... and I didn't have any extras of those. I lithobraked at 70m/s.

[Geschosskopf]

I keep forgetting that the LV-N now just uses LF instead of LFO. I keep using LFO tanks for it and wondering why it's performance sucks .

Otherwise, not much trouble with making stuff fly in 1.x. I used to use FAR and DRE a lot before so am used to all that stuff.

I have more trouble with the gameplay changes in career mode. Having to pay an ever-increasing amount for totally unskilled Kerbals, when I don't even get to choose what class they will eventually grow up to be, is aggravating. Even worse is the removal of nearly all science rewards from contracts. Career is a lot more grindy now.

[SpaceChipmunk]

I have more trouble with the gameplay changes in career mode. Having to pay an ever-increasing amount for totally unskilled Kerbals, when I don't even get to choose what class they will eventually grow up to be, is aggravating. Even worse is the removal of nearly all science rewards from contracts. Career is a lot more grindy now.

I would say just keep rescuing them from space, it is a lot better to get paid to get a new recruit than it is to pay for one!

[Wiseman]

I keep forgetting about the new inverse-square solar power curve. I had a probe orbiter + lander duo arrive at Eeloo triumphantly at year five of my career. I switch to it, marveling at the old technology I used to get there, and saw... a ring of four 2x3 panels powering it. Which is fine at that distance, so long as you don't actually DO anything, or move using reaction wheels. They had enough battery life to circularize the orbiter and deploy and land the lander, and I actually managed to transmit some science through a Communotron 16, but it emptied out the lander pretty quick. Fun fact: Over the course of an entire Eeloo day at 18^ north of the equator, two 1x6 panels (minus a HECS core) will gather up about 300 charge, which is aaaalmost enough to send a seismic scan in one go.

[Alshain]

I love the change to the solar panel, it adds diversity in usage. Otherwise you end up with parts just wasting memory, same problem with the old engines.

[moogoob]

Agreed re: solar panels. It's no longer just "stick OX_STATs all over every available surface and you'll be fine".

For me, it would be some of the small tweaks to the starter engines, the LVT-30 and 45. They now differ by more than just weight and thrust - the 45 has worse sea level performance but is now better high-altitudes as an engine with a smaller-sized bell is aught to.