The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[EliasDanger]

Holy heck, people. Enough with the wheels. Known bug, squad is working on it. Chill.

Go back to 1.0.5 for now of its that big of a deal for you or wait a few days. Gah!

[RyanRising]

I've been gone a long time, but I'm loading up KSP 1.1 now. I see a long, spaceship-filled night ahead of me for the first time in awhile.

 

EDIT: Everything is tiny... but the navball... the navball is huge.

Y'know what, continuing edits to this post, starting now. I still can't make a ship. Framerate is nice. The white horizons aren't gone, but are a bit less harsh.

Orbit lines seem different. Do they follow your ship now?

Haha, the classic PhysWarp message.

Burning for orbit... Still no Delta-V readout, huh? Maybe 1.2.

Orbit! Yay!

YOU CAN SEE IN IVA FROM OUTSIDE THE SHIP THAT IS AWESOME!

The EVA lights are at an unnaturally high framerate. My eyes have never known such beauty.

Running into my ship over and over. Never let me run a space program.

Uh oh, forgot solar panels. Some things never change.\

No better time to deorbit than the present.

The reentry effects do not make my computer cry. *Sniff*. It's amazing.

You can click to toggle RCS and SAS. I always thought you should be able to. Now you can.

The parachute strings are shaded properly.

Landed... rolling down a hill... all is well. 

EVERYTHING IS NOT WELL.

Aaaaaand killed Jeb. 

Final Verdict: Quality of Life improvements for me, not the Kerbals. These QoL improvements are well worth waiting a year for.

One more thing: Apparently the Kerbals' heads don't disappear using IVA. Hm.

Edited April 23, 2016 by RyanRising

[Dr. Jet]

Since someone "wisely" closed all 1.1 modding threads in "pre-release" section instead of renaming section to "release", I'll continue New Shaders thread here.

/KSP/Alpha/Translucent_Additive - what's that? It looks very weird in Unity when set instead of /KSP/Alpha/Translucent. 

/KSP/Bumped_Specular_(Transparent) and /KSP/Specular_(Transparent) - they seem to neither use alpha channel, nor follow "opacity" setting for actual transparency. How to use them and what for? 

Porkjet's tutorial about proper usage of KSP/InternalSpace/* shaders is still eagerly anticipated. 

/KSP/FX/ScrollingUnlit - ???

/KSP/LightWrapped/Specular - ???

/KSP/Standard_Bumped - looks very promising. It even has "metallness" parameter! But it surely needs a thorough tutorial. Let's say we want WHOLE texture to look metallic and glossy - can we do it with just one texture without extra "mapping" textures?

/KSP/UnlitColor/ - At last! A simple textureless shader! But why Unlit only? DiffuseColor, SpecularColor and EmissiveColor would be much more useful. 

 

BTW, not exactly 1.1 question, but... how to set shaders for decals (FlagTransform) so that they are invisible in part list (before flag texture even applies)? Setting no texture results in disgusting white rectangles, setting fully transparent substitute "texture"... it will work... but Squad parts don't use that.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Dr. Jet

[Fallarnon]

8 hours ago, Alshain said:

No, it doesn't.  You can't launch it with a pilot inside, and therefore, as far as version 1.1, it is not intended for use as a cockpit.  Some players, like @regex have found a work around for that, creative workarounds let you do a lot of beautiful and interesting things in KSP, but that doesn't change the fact it is not meant to be a cockpit, at least not in 1.1.  The wheels should be able to support at least a plane built with the lightest cockpit, currently the Mk1 Inline.

I've been able to whittle my Mk1 plane down to 3.5 tons.  It still wobbles down the runway on these wheels.  I might could knock of another 0.5 tons, but I doubt that little will make a big impact.  Therefore the wheels are barely usable on regular planes.

Like @regex and myself have been saying, the landing gear are perfectly serviceable if you build to a reasonable weight and treat them with care. Just to prove the point, here's a plane I built just for you: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Cardinal-I

The Cardinal I weighs in at a staggering 6.2 tons, safe touchdown speed was approximately 40m/s in the proof of concept flight I took to take this picture, which, yes, takes some crafty flying to achieve, but nothing you're incapable of, I'm sure.

Sorry it took so long to post, I was having a lovely time building ultralights and missed your response because my notifications got borked when someone decided to snowball all of the 1.1 related threads.

If you're interested, here's a couple of Ultralights I built. For starters, I tried to replicate @regex's design as it was my initial inspiration and I wanted to see where he was starting from, thus was born the Hummingbird I: http://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Hummingbird-I

Following on from successful testing thereof, I set out to try to improve upon the design. Thus was born the Hummingbird II: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Hummingbird-II

It shares the launching platform from the Hummingbird I but exhibits a less traditional design for an ultralight that in testing demonstrated superior handling characteristics. Where the Hummingbird I needed a speed in excess of 80m/s to lift off the runway (though would sustain flight at far lower) the Hummingbird II is ready to lift of nearly as soon as it's started rolling and comes equipped with a pair of mystery goo observation pods on the wings and space for other experiments as suits the mission plan.

So, there you have it, three aircraft, all using 1.1, all using the landing gear you claim doesn't work, and all tested repeatedly in take off and landing drills without a single landing gear detonation. In fact, I screwed up and blew a wing off of the plane and the landing gear still held up.

7 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

We are all learning about new aspects of play in 1.1, but if every person starts a whole new thread for his/her individual opinion or question, we end up with pages and pages of overlapping, confusing, and repetitive discussions. This is why we are still asking folks to submit their 1.1 reactions to this master thread, and why we are still merging so many individual threads into this one when we find them posted elsewhere. Please help us keep things sane and organized by discussing 1.1 here rather than starting new threads about it. 

No offense, but you guys snowballing everything into one massive thread is the wrong approach to this. Snowball by topic, not just 'It's 1.1 throw it in there!' You've actually created additional confusion by doing so because now discussions are all interwoven and there is no coherency to the topic being discussed. Why shouldn't there be a landing gear thread, a landing legs thread? At least then there's a snowball's chance that someone will notice it before making their own thread.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Fallarnon

[adsii1970]

11 minutes ago, Fallarnon said:

Like @regex and myself have been saying, the landing gear are perfectly serviceable if you build to a reasonable weight and treat them with care. Just to prove the point, here's a plane I built just for you: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Cardinal-I

***

So, there you have it, three aircraft, all using 1.1, all using the landing gear you claim doesn't work, and all tested repeatedly in take off and landing drills without a single landing gear detonation. In fact, I screwed up and blew a wing off of the plane and the landing gear still held up.

In your flight of this model, or of any craft, did you have the problem of the craft moving out of the center of the camera view? This is the major issue that I am having at the moment.  The landing gear issue - as you have stated isn't a problem because, to me, it looks like what I would expect to see on a Cessna. With that said, if it looks like Cessna gear, then it should only bear the weight of a Cessna - so I put them on Cessna-looking craft...

[Fallarnon]

17 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

In your flight of this model, or of any craft, did you have the problem of the craft moving out of the center of the camera view? This is the major issue that I am having at the moment.  The landing gear issue - as you have stated isn't a problem because, to me, it looks like what I would expect to see on a Cessna. With that said, if it looks like Cessna gear, then it should only bear the weight of a Cessna - so I put them on Cessna-looking craft...

I'm not sure, do you have a video I could compare against?

Edit: And a .craft file I could test?

Edited April 23, 2016 by Fallarnon

[shibdib]

So as long as I avoid landing struts and wheels I should be good for now is the gist I'm getting.. Guess I'll start a new game and get the staging orbital stations done and do the surface missions when 1.1.1 hits. 

[Fallarnon]

4 minutes ago, shibdib said:

So as long as I avoid landing struts and wheels I should be good for now is the gist I'm getting.. Guess I'll start a new game and get the staging orbital stations done and do the surface missions when 1.1.1 hits. 

Depends, try downloading one of my craft files from my post above and see if you can land them. Cardinal I takes off real easy and is happy landing at 40m/s or slower.

I'm continuing testing to eliminate later researched tech on the Cardinal I design. Here's one I flew to the airport with a Juno engine.

[Fallarnon]

So, here it is, the Cardinal II -- 100% Stock, 100% Low Level, 100% Takeoff, 100% Landable: https://kerbalx.com/Fallarnon/Cardinal-II

It occurs to me that the small fuel tanks are not in the first tech tree unlock for plane parts, no problem. That's a fuel tank they're mounted to, just remove the small tanks and replace them with modular girder segments, your plane will work perfectly and, bonus, it will weigh less giving you an easier time of landing!

[Majorjim!]

7 hours ago, regex said:

Squad is probably working on it.  Have faith.

Arsonide says they have to wait for the next unity update so don't hold your breath..

[mcirish3]

5 hours ago, Fallarnon said:

No offense, but you guys snowballing everything into one massive thread is the wrong approach to this. Snowball by topic, not just 'It's 1.1 throw it in there!' You've actually created additional confusion by doing so because now discussions are all interwoven and there is no coherency to the topic being discussed. Why shouldn't there be a landing gear thread, a landing legs thread? At least then there's a snowball's chance that someone will notice it before making their own thread.

I am actually confused by the whole mash everything into one thread thing.  They have never done that with any other release.  KSP1.1 is KSP and KSP is KSP1.1 .   I am not sure why they want to mash all discussion of the game into one megathread.  It as if they don't consider 1.1 KSP to be an official fully released version or something.

Edited April 23, 2016 by mcirish3

[Majorjim!]

Anyone interested in testing the 'skittering' vibrating, breaking LT-2 leg bug I submitted a bug report here

[Vermil]

11 hours ago, mcirish3 said:

Went and tested things and wheels do behave even less like the real world equivalent than they did in 1.0.5.  The first set of wheels you get is completely jacked up!  The LY-05 is clip into the ground, and most of the time blows up when you initiate physics.  The other ones(I forget their name) initiate horrible wobbles much worse that 1.0.5 and then promptly destroy themselves. I am sure I could make something that works to fly but would I want to NO!  Wheels in general are wonky in the extreme based on the other ones I tried also.  It is like they are both on glass but then suddenly they will stick like glue.  I am luckily a rocket man so not a big deal to me but wow I bet the spaceplane guys are mostly livid.  I hope rovers are not too horrible since I need to make some of them now for my vanilla play through.

Edit:  Oh ya breaks, do the new ones even work.  Even the more advanced wheels seemed to work poorly considering in the real world they can hold a jet in place at full thrust.

In short if real world wheels worked this way I probably would not make it to work alive, I live in MN USA and am no stranger to Icy roads but these wheel behave as if they were on a an ice rink, even with high friction.  

 

I've spent all my KSP time since v1.1 experimenting with wheels. Not for landing gears for aircraft, but for rovers.

The wheel physics are fubar'ed. IMO they can't be fixed. If SQUAD is serious about having realistic wheel physics they must throw them in the garbage can and start over from the beginning. There are people who can do this sort of thing, just consider all the racing simulators for instance. How about old GP Legends for instance? Isn't there code in public space these days? Wheels, vehicle speed, altitude and engine should be an energy system.

There are many problems with the wheels, but the main problem right now for the user is the directional frictions. For some reason, the lateral friction goes off the scale when you're moving forward. Basically, the wheels are behaving as if they're cutting into the ground and making their own rail. A rover, even at modest speed will instantly flip over, unless you've turned down friction so low it's just a useless soap spinning around on a wet piece of glass.

Now, I've developed a rover that avoids the problems and also exploits seven kinds of *... out of squad's wheel model. A 30m/s perpetuum mobile that climbs mountains. Pity, having spent all that time if squad changes it. But I suppose they have to.

There you go.  55 degrees off the horizontal, 35 degrees off vertical,  17.2 m/s , Battery charging 0.84, Constant brisk altitude gain + 5. I'm not even using the downward traction-rocket.

But those landing gears I have so good use for are probably not so good for landing aircraft on. I can well imagine that, even though I haven't tried.

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Vermil

[Senpai]

The endless thread merging is making this thread really incoherent. It's just too much for a single thread. It's really silly.

We should be able to have separate threads for the wheels, UI, crashing, other issues.

[OndrikB]

12 minutes ago, Senpai said:

The endless thread merging is making this thread really incoherent. It's just too much for a single thread. It's really silly.

We should be able to have separate threads for the wheels, UI, crashing, other issues.

Agreeing.

[tmccreight651]

BEFORE ANYONE ACCUSES ME OF BEING UNGRATEFUL I AM 100% GRATEFUL WITH WHAT THE DEVS DO FOR US, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

 

Now, onto the topic at hand. Yes, im disappointed with the 1.1 update, mostly because it's changed a lot of things and broken others (Mostly the UI) this may just be me (having Asperger's syndrome and all) But first things first: the UI, i dont like the new UI, it seems that all the icons both in flight and in the editors have a thick layer of foam on them (i don't know if the devs did this on purpose or if it's from the change in game engine, feel free to tell me in the comments) but i honestly preferred the old crisp textures instead of the new dulled ones (if there is anyway to get the old UI back PLEASE TELL ME) Continuing with UI problems (most of my gripes are with the UI) the camera seems unresponsive, sometimes right clicking and moving the mouse does nothing. other times it works fine, and other times the cursor disappears and the camera moves around with the mouse untill i right click again. Moving on to other problems. such as the performance boost, nonexistent on my laptop. I still have to run with the lowest graphical settings in order to get a decent framerate. Moving on to something good, i do like the new orbit lines showing how far an object is along its orbit VERY USEFUL when going somewhere like Gilly where it moves slow at Ap and fast at Pe. it gives you a feel of how fast the object/ship is moving. 

so, that is my review of 1.1, please feel free to discuss your thoughts and feelings in the comments

Thanks for reading- tmccreight651 

[QuesoExplosivo]

It's good (performance, fixed glitches, etc.), except for the new bug of the airplane landing gear freaking out. For me, this is a game-breaking bug. I used to fly spaceplanes a lot, and now many of my old designs can't make it off the runway. Until this bug is fixed, I rate the update Bad.

Edited April 23, 2016 by QuesoExplosivo

[Deddly]

11 minutes ago, tmccreight651 said:

(1) it seems that all the icons both in flight and in the editors have a thick layer of foam on them ...

(2) ...the cursor disappears and the camera moves around with the mouse untill i right click again.

I think I know what you mean with (1), because I noticed that too. But it could be because we are running on the lowest settings (I assumed so).

Did you know that (2) is actually an intended feature? Double right-click for mouse-camera mode, right click to switch off. 

As for how I feel, I understand they had a deadline to meet and had the launh party planned and everything. But I can't play until they fix the landing gear bug(s).

[Alshain]

I don't think I've seen any of the issue you mention, except #2, that can be disabled in settings (it's called Double Click Mouse Look).  Really I wish they would default that to off, it would cause a lot less posts on this forum complaining about it.  The only problems I have are the wheels and constant crash to desktop.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Alshain

[Guardsman111]

17 minutes ago, QuesoExplosivo said:

It's good (performance, fixed glitches, etc.), except for the new bug of the airplane landing gear freaking out. For me, this is a game-breaking bug. I used to fly spaceplanes a lot, and now many of my old designs can't make it off the runway. 

So this is why my aircraft are squiffing on the runway! I could have sworn there wasn't anything i had changed about my design style! 

[Xavven]

The update is "good." The framerate boost is a welcome addition and there were a lot of annoying UI bugs in 1.0.x that seem to be fixed in 1.1

TBH, my favorite fixes/additions are:

• Right clickable apoapsis/periapsis icons to pin their numerical values.
• Parts placed in radial symmetry don't split out in the staging queue when you move them.

My favorite gameplay rebalance is that the Swivel comes before the Reliant in the tech tree. A minor change, I know, but from a career advancement perspective it makes early rockets without steerable fins more believable -- a reaction wheel steering a rocket in atmospheric flight is a little too silly for me.

It was a bit much to wait a whole year for that, to be honest. We all have different personal priorities when it comes to how we'd like to see Squad continue to develop the game. I know a lot of mod-heavy players really like that it's 64-bit now and they can load waay more mods on, but I play vanilla. My personal preference would have been that they make more tweaks to career mode. KSP is one of those games that has excellent gameplay mechanics but a lackluster single-player campaign.

[oglommi]

Had a crash after maybe 20 minutes of play in a new stock career game. Inside the VAB with a low part low tech rocket. When pressing collect data on the science junior thingy the blue buttons turns blinky and weird until the bays until the data is collected. Haven't played more than maybe 25 minutes of 1.1 so I can't judge it yet,but it looks good.

[mcirish3]

Like I said.  Since KSP version 1.1 is the official version of KSP, it makes exactly zero sense to roll all discussion into one thread since it is the equivalent of rolling all KSP discussion into one thread, since KSP = KSP version 1.1

[mrclucks]

While I haven't played much and have reverted back to 1.0.5, I would rate it a little less than good.  Alot of the reworking that they have done shows very good promise and I look forward to more mods and more stable frame rate.  

On the flip side. There are a few bugs/glitches that kind of ruined all the hype of what 1.1 seemed like it would be.  I am perfectly happy to wait another month or two for 1.1 to get its bugs fixed and for mods to update.  1.0.5 is a pretty good release IMO and the main problem is mostly lag on high part count, with me being used to most of the Minor bugs

[Dafni]

1 hour ago, tmccreight651 said:

.... but i honestly preferred the old crisp textures instead of the new dulled ones ....

For what its worth, for me the new icons and UI and everything looks much crisper now. Might be your hardware.