The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[Claw]

2 minutes ago, KSK said:

are we stuck in the 90s here?

We're stuck in what looks like a unity (or KSP-unity) bug for OSX (but not all OSX, just some). If you aren't able to get the game to start correctly and into the settings screen, it's probably easiest to edit the settings file.

[rudi1291]

11 hours ago, Lysius said:

Anybody knows what will happen with the open Bugs in the pre release bug tracker? Will anybody look at them again? Does it make sense to continue reporting bugs?

I´m pretty sure they will be looked at. I saw that @Claw checked a bunch of them. Will they get copied to the 'normal' tracker? They dont show up there, makes checking for duplicates a bit harder...

And yeah, you can always report bugs, thats why there is a public tracker after all  

Edited April 20, 2016 by rudi1291

[Claw]

1 minute ago, rudi1291 said:

I´m pretty sure they will be looked at. I saw that @Claw checked a bunch of them.

Yes...I'm looking through them right now, still prioritizing, testing fixes, and closing things out.

[Sandworm]

8 minutes ago, bewing said:

Savegames from 1.0.5 mostly work on 1.1. But all flags do fall over, yes. I don't know if the easter egg is still there. If it vanished, that might be an oversight, and they will put it back in the hotpatch.

Haven't all the duna eggs been gone/buried under terrain for the last several updates?  I was under the impression that the entire egg/puzzle/storyline concept had been abandoned.

[Lysius]

22 minutes ago, Claw said:

Yes...I'm looking through them right now, still prioritizing, testing fixes, and closing things out.

The 1.1 anouncement felt a bit like "Thank you for wasting all your time on reporting bugs, but we don't care and released anyway" I hope you can prove me wrong. But at least you activity seems promising.

[sarbian]

7 minutes ago, Lysius said:

The 1.1 anouncement felt a bit like "Thank you for wasting all your time on reporting bugs, but we don't care and released anyway" I hope you can prove me wrong. But at least you activity seems promising.

You may want to open the bug tracker and set the filter on "closed" before saying stuff like that.

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, Arsonide said:

https://unity3d.com/unity/whats-new/unity-5.3

Yep.

That is good to hear thank you. 

 Just for clarity, and then I will leave you in peace, what do I need to set those three settings to so they are as they where before the full 1.1 dropped? When the sphere was reduced?

[sarbian]

2 hours ago, Arsonide said:

https://unity3d.com/unity/whats-new/unity-5.3

5.4 FTW
/run
/hides

6 hours ago, kithylin said:

Yep I can officially confirm, KSP -DOES NOT- use nvidia physx for physics calculations. For some reason they chose not to take advantage of the most important performance aspect of Unity 5, and I read in the changes up there that they even -REMOVED- some physx acceleration for wheels and using their own "whatever" instead.......................

 

I will still not understand why KSP does not take advantage of advanced technologies like this that already exist. Especially for a super physics-heavy game like KSP. One would think they would want all the advantages they could get in terms of performance, especially "free" ones by just tapping in to existing technologies.  Such a sad day.

And I can officially confirm that you are wrong. KSP use Unity physic system, which is PhysX 3.3. The wheels use Eddy's package which, surprise, use the Unity system and that system, surprise again, use PhysX Vehicle SDK.

Edited April 20, 2016 by sarbian

[J.Random]

Yeah.

[kithylin]

29 minutes ago, sarbian said:

5.4 FTW
/run
/hides

And I can officially confirm that you are wrong. KSP use Unity physic system, which is PhysX 3.3. The wheels use Eddy's package which, surprise, use the Unity system and that system, surprise again, use PhysX Vehicle SDK.

Nope. I set up my computer with a GTX-260 slaved below my GTX 770, loaded older nvidia drivers that supports both cards and set the GTX 260 to dedicated to physx. I verified it works first by loading borderlands 2, and saw 60% utilization on second card when I shot guns and grenades and stuff (physx heavy things).

 

Then I went and started KSP under 1.1, flew a few ships, crashed a few times, even did heavy flaming re-entry heat during one scenario.. 0% usage on second card dedicated to physx. It was even asleep in stand-by power mode.

 

So no, KSP does -NOT- use Physx what so ever.

[sarbian]

25 minutes ago, kithylin said:

So no, KSP does -NOT- use Physx what so ever.

It only prove you don't know how physx works. Only some tiny part of it is GPU accelerated. Like the particles, which is the the thing that Bordeland heavily use.

90% Physx is pure CPU. They added some rigidbody acceleration in the really latest version but it s not in Unity yet (and has only been out for a couple of month).

Edited April 20, 2016 by sarbian

[Curveball Anders]

Despite my continued grumpyness and expectation of an emergency patch soon I have to state that the upgrade went without any issues and all ongoing missions from 1.0.5 loads and appears to work.

Proper Job Squad!

I'll now revert to being grumpy and whiny over too many changes too fast

 

[WillThe84th]

I'm kinda sad. 

I was so pumped for KSP 1.1, but I'm on vacation and I can't play it yet, I guess I'll have to wait...  

[Sandworm]

10 minutes ago, WillThe84th said:

I'm kinda sad. 

I was so pumped for KSP 1.1, but I'm on vacation and I can't play it yet, I guess I'll have to wait...  

You aren't missing much.  I just tried to play the stock game.  Kerbin is still a tiny rock against a blurry mess of a skybox.  The planets haven't changed.  The face is still underground.  Rockets wobble like mad.  The selection of stock parts remains pathetic.  Until the modding community catches up, you aren't missing much.

[Warpedone]

Very excited about 1.1 but it's finally overwhelmed the memory on my asthmatic old PC... 

I'm used to the game crashing every half an hour with a dozen interplanetary missions out there after a few game years, but now it's happening by launch 3!

A bit disappointing with all the talk of the new platform being less resource hungry but that's life, time to start saving for a new machine

 

[T.A.P.O.R.]

Uh not sure what's going on, but I've played an hour of 1.1 and encountered more bugs than in the prerelease.

Worst are

1. Acceleration to escape velocity with no fuel on aerobrake from Mun.

2. KSC menus flash up and disappear. Can't get into any buildings.

To the bug tracker?

On a positive note, no floppy rockets

Edited April 20, 2016 by T.A.P.O.R.
Positivity!

[kithylin]

1 hour ago, sarbian said:

It only prove you don't know how physx works. Only some tiny part of it is GPU accelerated. Like the particles, which is the the thing that Bordeland heavily use.

90% Physx is pure CPU. They added some rigidbody acceleration in the really latest version but it s not in Unity yet (and has only been out for a couple of month).

 

The act of setting "dedicate to physx" in nvidia control panel by switching it from "Auto" to a video card, disables CPU acceleration and enables GPU acceleration only. That's how it works.

There's no point in discussing it, it's been well-established that's how nvidia works ever since physx was allowed on nvidia cards instead of AEGIA physx cards.

The only time it uses CPU for even partial physx is if you have only 1 video card and leave the physx setting on "auto".

So if we dedicate a secondary GPU to physx, launch a game title, and see 0% utilization for the dedicated physx card, then no the title doesn't use it at all.

[XrayLima]

I think many folk noticed this pretty early on in the Pre-Release as there were a suite of Bug Reports early on about various landing gear issues.(This one seems closest http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/7922)  Apparently some of these were fixed and some not.  It's now not clear to me if these lower than expected stress limits on these is a bug or a feature  From my plays through it is very tough to build a plane capable of carrying a Hammer solid rocket plus fuel and engines for those early "Taking readings above 19800m" type contracts with fixed landing gear.  This would be a plane of about 8t dropping to less than half that on landing.  I have done it - it required three things.  

1. Long, angled wings, I.E. when on the runway the wings have a positive angle of attack.  This was achieved by both the angle at which the plane sat at and rotating the wings slightly.  This enabled the plane to  take off without needing to pitch up to rotate as any rotation would overstress the LY-01 rear landing gear as they are typically located behind both the centre of gravity and lift.

2. Very very slow landing speeds.  I'm talking a final sink rate of less than 3 m/s with a forward airspeed of 30m/s or less.  On these landing gear its not really a plane, more a powered glider!

3.  Turn traction control to manual on all wheels.  This seemed to take a lot of the weird behaviour out of the take off and landing.

It was hard to get right though and quicksaves before any attempted landing!

I found it hard with 1800+ hours, I'd hate to see how frustrated and fed up a new player might get having to deal with this - it's just not fun anymore.

Edited April 20, 2016 by XrayLima

[RocketBlam]

Yes, I've noticed them, and I was actually really surprised that Squad released 1.1 without having fixed them, despite knowing about the problems. Having your landing gear explode on even gentle landings, or worse yet, during takeoff, is not the Kerbal Way. That's not fun, it's frustrating.

[Phineas Freak]

1 hour ago, kithylin said:

Nope. I set up my computer with a GTX-260 slaved below my GTX 770, loaded older nvidia drivers that supports both cards and set the GTX 260 to dedicated to physx. I verified it works first by loading borderlands 2, and saw 60% utilization on second card when I shot guns and grenades and stuff (physx heavy things).

 

Then I went and started KSP under 1.1, flew a few ships, crashed a few times, even did heavy flaming re-entry heat during one scenario.. 0% usage on second card dedicated to physx. It was even asleep in stand-by power mode.

 

So no, KSP does -NOT- use Physx what so ever.

Unity 5 supports PhysX with two different ways, via the CPU (software) and via the GPU (CUDA hardware acceleration) but you have to explicitly enable the GPU option for your game. KSP devs decided that enabling GPU acceleration would be bad for any players that use AMD cards and do not support the second option. So it is normal that you see 0% utilization on the second GFX card.

For more information: High-performance physics in Unity 5

[Arsonide]

2 hours ago, Majorjim said:

That is good to hear thank you. 

 Just for clarity, and then I will leave you in peace, what do I need to set those three settings to so they are as they where before the full 1.1 dropped? When the sphere was reduced?

Offset: 0.5

Range: 0.5

Multiplier: 1.1

[FiiZzioN]

4 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

Unity 5 supports PhysX with two different ways, via the CPU (software) and via the GPU (CUDA hardware acceleration) but you have to explicitly enable the GPU option for your game. KSP devs decided that enabling GPU acceleration would be bad for any players that use AMD cards and do not support the second option. So it is normal that you see 0% utilization on the second GFX card.

For more information: High-performance physics in Unity 5

If that really is the case, isn't that a bad decision anyways? Every other game has an option where you can disable PhysX if you don't have an Nvidia card, so why can't squad do the same? If I was an Nvidia user it would feel like a middle finger... I'm sorry that not everyone has Nvidia, but I do, so why should I "suffer" and not have all my resources pushed if I have them readily available?

Edited April 20, 2016 by FiiZzioN

[Majorjim!]

2 minutes ago, Arsonide said:

Offset: 0.5

Range: 0.5

Multiplier: 1.1

Thank you arsonide, much appreciated. 

[Adarsh]

Yeeeeee Ha

[stenole]

I've experienced some problems with the tier 1 wheels also, thinking that early plane tech could be a shortcut to easy science and money before going to the mun.

For my plane it was fixable by taking some of the fuel out to shed mass and using the ailerons as flaps to give more lift during takeoffs and landings. I still needed to be very careful by pitching up very gently and landings had to happen at 30m/s with nearly no vertical speed. Maybe also putting the wheels on parts that will flex (like the wings) instead of the main body could have helped. Another way of dealing with it might be to use canards (wings in the front) to lift the nose up instead of an elevator in the back to pivot the plane on the rear landing gear.

In retrospect, it would have been better to either get the better plane parts first or to make the planes launch vertically.

I still think the wheels are fine even if they are very fragile. Just realize that 1.05 planes using those wheels will likely have to be reengineered.