The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[Dr.K Kerbal]

I haven't played KSP in a while. I still managed to get to the Mun. I did a SLS design with a couple of mods installed. I think I did pretty well. There was plenty of fuel left over from the Munar lander.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Dr.K Kerbal

[PandaCheese]

Does anyone else find it very difficult to tell contract orbit's direction (clockwise or counter)? 1.1.3 is my first intro to the game. Apparently there had been running dots along the orbit at some point but all there is now is this hard to notice moving gradient I really have to squint to see.

Edited July 26, 2016 by PandaCheese
grammar

[olie Murphy]

Waiting for KSP Store.

[Vermil]

Just going to say that 1.1.3 1289 (64-bit) works pretty well for me and it's fun to play KSP now.  Great work SQUAD.

Landing struts seem to be filled with potassiumperchlorate and are also a bit slippery, but no big deal.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Vermil said:

Just going to say that 1.1.3 1289 (64-bit) works pretty well for me and it's fun to play KSP now.  Great work SQUAD.

Landing struts seem to be filled with potassiumperchlorate and are also a bit slippery, but no big deal.

Yes, the 64 bit version was an game changer finally I can go full scale. My only pressent issue is the landing legs who is super slippery and tend to explode. 

[TheDestroyer111]

HAHAHA

The only difference I immediately noticed was a huge lowering of performance. On heavily modded (lots of highly memory using mods) 1.0.5 that didn't use temporary disk space, I rarely went below 25 fps, while on stock 1.1 using temporary disk space, on lower quality graphics settings I rarely get above 20 fps! (although after some time, I noticed that high part count ships and lots of mods don't influence FPS as much as on 1.0.5. On 1.0.5 I had much better FPS without mods, and much worse FPS with 400 part ships, while on 1.1 these things don't make such a big difference) Also, 1.1 uses 1,5x as much permanent disk space as 1.0.5.

And the wheel physics really shouldn't get all those changes... Also, why do some people say that the changes were needed as "the old wheel physics is incompatible with Unity 5"? For the old wheel physics to be incompatible, Unity 5 must have made some incomprehensive changes such as changing the "if" function that every programmer knows to "when" (thus making all old code of any kind totally useless).

P.S. sorry for being a bit late

Edited August 16, 2016 by TheDestroyer111

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, TheDestroyer111 said:

And the wheel physics really shouldn't get all those changes... Also, why do some people say that the changes were needed as "the old wheel physics is incompatible with Unity 5"? For the old wheel physics to be incompatible, Unity 5 must have made some incomprehensive changes such as changing the "if" function that every programmer knows to "when" (thus making all old code of any kind totally useless).

Well, despite your smart remarks, wheel physics did change.  This has been discussed over and over again.  Squad had to completely recode it for KSP 1.1 and Unity 5.  It's why any parts mod from KSP 1.0.5 and before had problems with their wheels and landing legs until they were upgraded.  And unfortunately there are bugs in Unity that caused the wheel problems in KSP 1.1.  The workarounds have been improved over each KSP subversion, but will only be resolved with another Unity upgrade coming in KSP 1.2.

[Andem]

6 hours ago, TheDestroyer111 said:

HAHAHA

The only difference I immediately noticed was a huge lowering of performance. On heavily modded (lots of highly memory using mods) 1.0.5 that didn't use temporary disk space, I rarely went below 25 fps, while on stock 1.1 using temporary disk space, on lower quality graphics settings I rarely get above 20 fps! (although after some time, I noticed that high part count ships and lots of mods don't influence FPS as much as on 1.0.5. On 1.0.5 I had much better FPS without mods, and much worse FPS with 400 part ships, while on 1.1 these things don't make such a big difference) Also, 1.1 uses 1,5x as much permanent disk space as 1.0.5.

And the wheel physics really shouldn't get all those changes... Also, why do some people say that the changes were needed as "the old wheel physics is incompatible with Unity 5"? For the old wheel physics to be incompatible, Unity 5 must have made some incomprehensive changes such as changing the "if" function that every programmer knows to "when" (thus making all old code of any kind totally useless).

P.S. sorry for being a bit late

Edited August 16, 2016 by Andem

[Terwin]

40 minutes ago, Andem said:

Except replace "CS" with "All Software Development"

All software development is a subset of CS(Computer Science, which generally also includes firmware and hardware)

[Andem]

13 minutes ago, Terwin said:

All software development is a subset of CS(Computer Science, which generally also includes firmware and hardware)

God dammit, this is why I hate acronyms. Always a chance to mix them up. Hold on.

[PB666]

On August 2, 2016 at 7:25 AM, magnemoe said:

Yes, the 64 bit version was an game changer finally I can go full scale. My only pressent issue is the landing legs who is super slippery and tend to explode. 

I have played to the mun on career mode hard. This is 64 bit windows version 1.1.3 ( i don't waste my time trying to be a debug guinea pig when new major versions come out)

The graphics is a substantial improvement, except kerbin deserts, which are so bright now there in no contrast, and i typically keep my monitor on the dim side. Noticible improvements are : 

 The starfeild, terrain from space, the visual ascetic of the graphics performance in general is improved. 

Each major version has diminished the early game bugs, particularly critical in career mode hard. 

With the first kerbin day i was able to play into orbit, by the third kerbin day i was at the mun, and this was career hard so major bugs would have definitely hampered achievement. This is the first time I have been able to play to the mun without MechJeb or some other aid, many or the navigation quirks seem to have been tamed

What i dislike, the feeding of silly stupid contracts that are obviously going to be declined because they offer no reward and insane risk early game, by the time these are low risk with the equipment the reward is trivial. One particular contract was to haul  TT38 to 10 to 12k at 1,100 to 1,400m/s. As a general rule you should try not to be at mach 3.5 at ~ 30,000 or so feet unless you are in an SR71 blackbird, and near as i can tell there is nothing even close to that aerodynamic early game. I found my reputation taking a hit early game because of all the contracts I was declining, simply because the were idiot traps. These do nothing more than slow the game down and spread out play over more days. 

I still find the early game areodynamics and the lack of a simple wheel early game annoying, though  with fewer bugs it was less annoying. There seems to be somewhat more visible high spped effects at low altitude than previous. At least one aerodynamic ff1 to ff0 adapter or fuel tank should be in the game, my added part increases performance with fewer roll overs. Definitely craft are more sensitive on re-entry. 

i had one spacecraft blow up rolling on the ground on the runway at a fairly low speed and one near the lauch pad for the same reason, Though breaking of vessels that roll splashed down i did not observe and vessels don break on tilt overs post landing, the chutes tend to catch them. Chutes in general are working better.

One very obvious bug, the staging icons are not reporting the correct number or radial distributed parts when their ordering in the numbering sustem is moved. It tends to autocorrect when the next manipulation of the apstaging occurs. 

[DeepSlayLP]

Okay, this is an idea I just got. Would it be possible somehow to make the doors on the VAB and SPH work? You could make it so that when you land a plane or helicopter you can take the kerbals and go with them to these doors and then they get placed back into the selection menu but the vessels stay outside. That would be a cool feature.

[qoonpooka]

On 7/25/2016 at 9:30 PM, PandaCheese said:

Does anyone else find it very difficult to tell contract orbit's direction (clockwise or counter)? 1.1.3 is my first intro to the game. Apparently there had been running dots along the orbit at some point but all there is now is this hard to notice moving gradient I really have to squint to see.

There is a bold-gradient on the orbit now.  The boldest part represents the 'head' of the thing, if you will, and the faintest part is the 'tail.'  Orbits chase their tails.  So the orbit is moving towards the faintest part of the orbit, from the boldest part.