The Grand KSP 1.1 Discussion Thread

[RocketBlam]

To me, landing is hard enough without having to make a perfect approach. And I've done a lot of spaceplanes. Imagine how frustrating it would be for a beginner?

[N_Molson]

13 minutes ago, stenole said:

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 [...]

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.

That could be OK if we had a propeller as a first aircraft engine part. But we have to deal directly with reaction engines. If I take the Me-262 (the first plane to use reaction engines), here are the landing instructions :

The best approach speed is 230 - 250 k.p.h (63 - 69 m/s). Shortly before reaching the airfield boundary, decrease the glide angle a little and reduce the speed to about 200 k.p.h. (55 m/s) Then flatten out and touch down nomally as with an aircraft having a tail wheel. Touchdown speed is 175 k.p.h. (48.6 m/s). After touchdown, allow the aircraft to tip forward slowly. Only apply brakes when the nose wheel has touched the ground.

30 m/s (108 kph) is much too slow. Even a car runs faster on an highway.

Edited April 20, 2016 by N_Molson

[ShoanGachi]

Rotation angle of landing struts is messed up, also seems like my game can't handle big multistage ships

[sarbian]

1 hour ago, kithylin said:

 

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.

 

39 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

 

No, no and no. The CUDA of physx does not deal at all with rigidbody physic. If you actually read the post you linked you would notice that it only talk about CUDA for cloth simulation. Even the AEGIA card did not do the rigidbody on hardware.

There is no magical "physic on GPU" box in Unity. They might be once they integrate the new PhysX GRB, and even then I doubt they will do it since it would be Nvida only.

[Atlas2342]

Umm guys, the navball....did it get bigger or am I just lacking sleep. It seems like its distracting for me...

[adsii1970]

10 hours ago, RocketBlam said:

You've been holding a Diet Coke since the 1980's?

Your hand must be cold.

Hahaha, actually, back in those days it was either RC Cola or Coca Cola... Early on, I learned how to use the keyboard for flight because joysticks for a 12 year old took a LOT of allowance money. I didn't buy my first joystick until around 1987; I don't remember the exact game I bought it for, though...

I've gotten quite good at one-handed keyboard flight... But with spinning into 360s when landing aircraft, all fingers on deck!

[Algomeysa]

3 hours ago, Sandworm said:

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.

Well, the face is still there:

[lyndonguitar]

upgrading to a new engine and 64bit windows support is the best news I've ever heard ever since I play KSP. That would mean better performance, bigger ships, more parts, and MORE MODS installed.

 

Mods can bring in new features and parts, but they can never upgrade KSP to unity 5 and 64bit support so I thank the developers they finally did it

I stopped playing KSP years ago because I was busy with stuff and didn't have long enough breaks to enjoy the game. I could play in quick sessions but that won't be satisfying. I guess I need a long break ASAP.

Edited April 20, 2016 by lyndonguitar

[stenole]

I'm not sure if real world comparisons apply in the Kerbal world. I tested a tier 1 plane that used canards for pitch controll with 1 juno engine and 200 units of fuel just now. It could be landed quite brutally at 50 m/s. I was looking at the wheel stress meter and it didn't reach further than 20. 60 m/s landings were also fine, but at speeds higher than that I had trouble getting it to land on its rear wheels. I think the key is to keep the mass low by not adding too many engines nor too much fuel.

[bewing]

4 hours ago, Sandworm said:

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.

Abandoned, yes ... but the easter eggs are funny! Need a few more of them, I'd say, as they add greatly to the enjoyment of the game.

[XrayLima]

Although I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think the propulsion system itself should dictate the takeoff and landing speed.  Indeed the Me-262 like all combat aircraft will require high speed landings and takeoff due to the desire for low drag/high speed performance leading to high wing loading. Compare it to the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Atlantic_GlobalFlyer), another jet aircraft but with wildly different landing speed.  The global flyer was so slick and had so much lift that it had trouble losing altitude with the engine idling.  It's landing speed was significantly lower than the Me-262.

[Algomeysa]

Ok, I see what's happened now.   It's more that the saved games have changed slightly in longitude and latitude.     So flags positioned near Easter Eggs are now a bit off.

When I walked the Kerbal over to those coordinates on Duna (30° 20′ 30″ S 28° 48′ 37″ W)

(Again, with Terrain detail set to HIGH from the main menu)

The Mars Curiosity camera is still there.

 

 

[CodeFantastic]

 You roll backwards now. It's 10/10.

[CodeFantastic]

 I tied making a small plane, but on the runway the control surfaces were inverted or something because when I pulled up the nose went down. Went back and flipped the cs and tried again, but the plane wouldn't lift off, it was just turn off the runway and crash. The plane is only a mk1 cockpit, inline airintake, fuel tank, wheezly, and some wings.

[Little Hyena]

"Lets See If we can Fly Tonight"  `Halifax,Nightmare

[worir4]

I just tried it with the stock Mallard and it rolls forwards still. 

I have found that some planes that have the back wheels lower than the front seem to bounce backwards a bit but they then slow down and start rolling forwards again.

[HebaruSan]

12 minutes ago, CodeFantastic said:

it was just turn off the runway and crash.

I can't solve your lift problem without seeing the plane, but you might be able to have it drive straight off the end of the runway and crash instead () if you right click the landing gear and disable steering. Or maybe try disabling SAS; I think I've seen feedback loops with the steering where once your cockpit's alignment gets slightly off, the attempts to auto-correct it just make it worse.

[bewing]

The devs were messing with the settings on the wheels from the first instant of the 1.1 prerelease. Yes, the LY01/LY05 wheels currently are unreasonably finicky during takeoff/landing. The LY10s are much better.

I agree with stenole here. Remove some fuel, get your weight down. Use a canard setup. Land slow. You are going to need to be a little clever between now and the time when the hotpatch comes out and fixes all this stuff to make it newbie-friendly. You need to understand that all this is going to change again very soon. So don't be going and getting all riled up just yet.

[Superfluous J]

The level 1 runway (i.e., the one part of Kerbin's surface that is least like a runway) is so bumpy that you roll backward. Every other runway, you still roll forward.

[bewing]

There is a hump in the T1 runway right where the game spawns your jet. You may roll forward, or you may roll backward. It depends entirely on the length of your jet and the positioning of your wheels, as to where on the hump they end up sitting. This has been true since v 1.0.4 at least.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

Why don't the wheels just brake by default?

[bewing]

6 hours ago, Algomeysa said:

I see one listed I've never seen before, a large orange circle on Bop.      Large Orange Circle (4° 44′ 24″ S 72° 46′ 12″ W)

Is that new with 1.1, or has it been around awhile?
 

I thought I remember it being said that the orange circle vanished if you got too close to it? It surprises me that it has exact coordinates listed, so I may be wrong.

[Superfluous J]

6 minutes ago, Choctofliatrio2.0 said:

Why don't the wheels just brake by default?

That is an extremely good question that I personally cannot answer.

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

That is an extremely good question that I personally cannot answer.

Two things have always irked me:

1: Me being distracted by something else when the plane spawns, and when I get back to it it's already off the runway, and

2: The pilot leaves the plane to take a surface sample or whatever, and the brakes disengage and the plane starts rolling away and I can't catch it.

[Starhawk]

Hello @Little Hyena and welcome to the forum!

Happy landings!